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.

"This librarian is unpainted and missing an arm and backpack, sure, but he's really got a jump pack and plasma pistol."

Scott-S6 wrote:Not modelling upgrades leaves you missing important information.
Modelling non-upgrade equipment is redundant.

Modelling non-upgrade equipment is not as essential... but I wouldn't go as far as to say redundant.

The whole point of WYSIWYG is that the visual representation of the unit should be accurate, so that players can see what everyone has rather than having to remember it.

So, yes, it would be awesome if everyone could remember exactly which units out of the bazillion different units available to put on the table have grenades and which don't... but since people don't remember that, it's helpful if people set up their models accurately.

That is what WYSIWYG does. It's not an insidious money-making tool. It's not designed to force people to spend more time on modelling. It's just a way to make the game easier to play for everyone.

insaniak wrote:Modelling non-upgrade equipment is not as essential... but I wouldn't go as far as to say redundant.

It's quite situational.

e.g. I don't bother modelling frag & krak on marines because every marine has them.
I do put stikkbombs on kommandos because most orks don't have them.
I do model frag grenades on guardsmen because some don't have them (special weapon squads) but that's a pretty extreme case. (and I like how they look with webgear)

I wouldn't object to anyone not modelling non-optional wargear.

WYSIWYG can be slippery as there are indeed many codex options that have no factual models.

This. Large, conspicuous objects like main weapons I would like modeled, unless it is a test game or similar. Consistency with the "My missile launchers are railguns today!" is second best. Bare bases/half complete models outside of a "We were drunk at 3 AM and decided to play warhammer" situation will get eyebrows raised. Coke cans hitting the board as carnifex or TWC gets a pewter hive tyrant to the face.

Smaller support items, wargear, etc. that could be already explained as a non-exterior upgrade or ridiculously time consuming to model or paint illustratively I will freely give a pass on. I don't care if you didn't model your vehicles extra armor, as extra armor could constitute spall liners in the interior, overarmored crew compartments, even additional body armor. I don't care if you actually have toxin sacs or acid blood modelled, as it would be physiologically ridiculous to have on the outside. If you have grenades (Which, as in at least a couple BL novels, may be coin-sized and held in a forearm armor compartment..) and have them noted on your list if they have a points cost, I am cool there too.

If you want to use models from army A, to represent army B, I am totally, absolutely cool with if it makes -sense-. With the chapter perks and special character army changing hoopla with the vanilla codices for two editions now, I have no problem if you want to run Ultramarines from the BA codex, heck I have certainly wanted to. Or BT as ultramarines. If the difference is a paint job or minor armor decor it's all OK. I don't even care if you want to use Chaos Havoc Missile Launchers for Long fangs and CSM for grey hunters. Certainly couldn't blame you. But something along the lines of a carnifex posing as an IG basilisk, or a land raider posing as your new Baneblade....Hive tyrant to the face.

Now, on the other side, I try to abide by these same rules. If there are questions about the gear I have selected, then I will happily answer and continually remind the opponent as needed thorought the game (Though the issue has never come up in my group yet.) and as long as everyone remains cool, I will be cool. "Your grenades aren't modeled and so you don't have them!" types however...best make sure that his sternguard have a modeled spare mag for each individual ammunition type they carry, ALL secondary and tertiary wargear should be modeled, ALL vehicle wargear should be modeled (Particularly wargear that GW/FW has made no model for.) and if I am having a particularly nasty day, his librarians psychic powers should be listed on all those little books librarian models come with or otherwise modeled in an obvious manner. His artificer armor better look particularly blinged out compared to the standard model as well.

Also, a Hive tyrant to the face.

Someone once told me that I did not model my shadowfield on my Archon....so I fielded him as an empty black base until he failed his save

(he didnt fail his save till turn 7, after reaching Str 10 and killing half the other guy's army by himself)

How do you feel about someone playing an off chapter of space marines, so they can be played as the verity of specific codexs? I.E. Mortifactors (an Ultra smurfs successor chapter) being played as DA or BT. naturally you would have to get Mortifactor 'Neophytes' and such, but is that abusing the rules in any way?

I mean, come in one day with Blood angels and the next day space wolves, with appropriate models played between them both?


In tourny play, I wouldn't see it as an issue, since they are fairly spaced between themselves, and I would be no more frustrated then if someone had switched out the army. In casual however, I would feel as though the player was pressing dangerously into 'Win at All Costs!' kind of mentality.

Tagboard Wizard wrote: In casual however, I would feel as though the player was pressing dangerously into 'Win at All Costs!' kind of mentality.

Surely that would depend on why they were swapping between codexes?

Sure, if they're doing it to get the most powerful build possible against whoever they are playing, that might be verging on WAAC behaviour. But if they're just doing it because they like to try out different lists, or to vary their games a little, it's ultimately no different to people swapping between this army list with a dreadnought in it today, and that army list with a landspeeder in it tomorrow...

At my store we arent hard core about it.

But in truth its beginning to get on my nerves alittle.

I dont mind you play testing something out or a minor verity such as this flamer is a melta or this model. Its cool so long as you can tell hey this one dosnt have a normal weapon.
Or this one, the only model with any Close Combat Weapon actually has a Power weapon. Its cool the only one with a CCW has a power weapon ie he is different.

I get times are hard and no one wants to shell out 30 plus dollars for entire squad squad kite just for 2 weapons that are included.

Now when my friend is done testing he still uses the subs instead of slowly working to get close to the models. I mean using a rhino for a tank/skimmer or an ork for a marine ... from a different army completely.
Not cool save up after a few months of playing with a Sub if you dont show effort to become more in line that wont fly. Or at least use the guide lines above i get it we sometimes dont want to give all our units power weapons to save points. But an ork is an ork and a marine is a marine ... dont cross armies.l

I have never turned down a game if someone didn't have a WYSIWYG army.

As long as we can keep it straight, I say go for it.

Scott-S6 wrote:My models have exactly what they have.

And I don't have piles of spare guys with different options either - I aim for good all-round choices and stick with them.

This.

Although over time and changing editions I am gradually accumulating a number of spare guys with different options.

nosferatu1001 wrote:1) The molds are NOT cheap. As in, £30 - 50k per sprue "not cheap"

Argument refuted

2) So you dont think its wasteful to include 16 uneccessary weapons? You have a different idea of "wasteful" to the rest of the world. Especially if you want a 10 man unit, you've just wasted 36 weapons!

3) You do realise you missed the entire "plastic technology has improved" part? To get the density you want they would have to redesign both sprues OR include a new one. All to placate some people who cant be bothered to model their models correctly....

Agreeign to disagree implies one side has some form of logic behind their argument. You dont.

You havent even been able to answer where wysiwyg comes from - and it certainly isnt GW.

*le sigh*

1) The mold has to be made regardless, it doesn't have to be on the same sprue, GW's overhead is the same. It is not like they don't make the molds for everything, and I have done some casting work (jewelry) on my own and know that a master mold can be reused many times. I can only imagine one of manufacturing grade to be used almost indefinitely, or at least for the life cycle of the product. This is an initial cost they have to pay, regardless of materials. The pewter casts will cost more, and probably have to be injected in the molds since pewter contains some silver/tin/copper/lead (depending on the mix) and it sets ultra fast. When I made rings I had to use centrifugal casters. I also have cast bullets for guns, and lead sets pretty quick once cooled. Plastic technology has made the manufacturing process easier and cheaper over all. Plastic is also cheaper and easier to reuse. Metal requires more energy to melt down. This allows them to reuse scraps more efficiently.

2) Is it wasteful? That is a very subjective thing to answer. Would I waste it? Nope, I'd use magnets, mod them, and swap them out like action figures. I am sure a lot of people would do this. In fact, with extra arm/shoulder attachments it would be rather easy. Plus, what is considered wasteful? Any extra heavy weapons can be added to vehicles, scenery, or other modifications. It would hardly go to waste for a lot of people. Some people may in fact waste it.

3) simply wrong. Just toss the sprue they come on already. Melta guns, already exist on their own sprues, heady weapons do as well, mirror it. Or, better yet, break them off in assembly fashion when packaging them. You don't have to reinvent the wheel.

I agreed to disagree because you failed to even consider my points. Diversifying your product and limiting it in some say is in fact a proven method to increase sales. Printers come with start ink cartridges and no cables, console video game systems come with one controller and no games, when you buy a car it come at the base model and you pay to upgrade features. Some of these sales techniques may be justified more so than others, while others seem like a ploy to just get you to spend more money. The mark up on cables and accessories is horrendous. Manufacturers know this, and to make up on profit margin here or there they do things like this.

It comes down to overhead versus profit margin. GW isn't expanding their sales really at all. I must admit I am sort of expressing my opinion here more so than fact. This is because I am not looking at their actual manufacturing costs and I am not attending their board meetings when they discuss sales and profits. If I were given hard evidence it would cost them tremendous amounts of money to add in a few more plastic options here and there versus what they sell them for, I would change my mind. However, I highly doubt you could justify that to me.

Back in the day marines (and most models) came 2 per a blister pack. You wanted two missile launchers you only bought 2 dudes. You wanted basic troops there were some plastic boxed sets. However, it was very easy to build your own exactly how you want it. In fact, back then WYSIWYG was easier. You weren't restrained by the contents of the boxed sets. You wanted to buy marines with melta guns, they came 2 per a blister pack. Then you could buy the tactical boxed set of plastics and you could easily, and with more affordability create your army exact model for model.

It is of my opinion GW changed their whole business model to boxed sets and mail order only for several reasons, and all of them were about making more money rather than providing their customers with what they wanted. Which I don't have a problem with per se. I want companies to make money. I don't want to be forced into buying tons of extra crap to get my long fang squad 5 missile launchers.

Crom wrote:1) The mold has to be made regardless, it doesn't have to be on the same sprue, GW's overhead is the same. It is not like they don't make the molds for everything, and I have done some casting work (jewelry) on my own and know that a master mold can be reused many times. I can only imagine one of manufacturing grade to be used almost indefinitely, or at least for the life cycle of the product. This is an initial cost they have to pay, regardless of materials. The pewter casts will cost more, and probably have to be injected in the molds since pewter contains some silver/tin/copper/lead (depending on the mix) and it sets ultra fast. When I made rings I had to use centrifugal casters. I also have cast bullets for guns, and lead sets pretty quick once cooled. Plastic technology has made the manufacturing process easier and cheaper over all. Plastic is also cheaper and easier to reuse. Metal requires more energy to melt down. This allows them to reuse scraps more efficiently.

The moulds used for plastic injection casting are very expensive to produce. That's a large part of the reason that GW don't just make everything in plastic... it's just not economically viable for anythign that's not a big seller.

Add an extra sprue to the current heavy weapon box and you're adding an extra 50% to the moulding costs of that box. It's not as simple as just tossing in another sprue.

Printers come with start ink cartridges and no cables,

We already covered that one... Printers these days do come with cables.

And USB cables (which is what the vast majority of (if not all) printers use these days) are not expensive. They're not a viable add-on sale.

Crom wrote: Printers come with start ink cartridges and no cables,

Printers generally do come with a USB cable. There was a period when they did not come with cables - when printers with both parallel and USB ports were common. Should you force people to pay for two cables or for a cable they don't want? Also, how can it be a ploy to improve sales when you can buy any cable you want and many of the printer vendors do not sell loose cables? If you leave the cable out then you only make extra money from customers that don't have a cable already and happen to buy your brand. Putting the cable in the box and increasing the price to cover it lets you make extra from every customer. Your whole argument is invalid.

Crom wrote:console video game systems come with one controller and no games,

Again, including a game just forces people to pay for something that they don't want.

Crom wrote:Some of these sales techniques may be justified more so than others, while others seem like a ploy to just get you to spend more money.

They aren't sales techniques. Adding parts that not everyone wants and, inevitably, increasing the price to pay for them isn't a good idea.

In some cases, I feel that the including of options has gone too far - the IG HWS box, for example, has approx 2/3 wastage due to having all the weapon options whilst offering almost no variety in the crews. I would gladly trade some variety in the crew for dropping heavy bolters, for example.

You suggest that not having all the options is a sinister ploy to sell more stuff. I'd say the opposite. Putting all the options in and making it more expensive gets extra money out of every customer - leaving out options only gets extra money from some customers.

Crom wrote:3) simply wrong. Just toss the sprue they come on already. Melta guns, already exist on their own sprues, heady weapons do as well, mirror it.

You can't just "toss the sprue". The cost is not designing the parts - it's having the mould cut. Cutting an injection mould is an expensive time consuming process costing tens of thousands of pounds. You seem to think that they can just take the masters and knock out a new sprue design - that is not how it works.

Crom wrote: Or, better yet, break them off in assembly fashion when packaging them.

Genius - pay UK wages to a bunch of people to break off parts and package them and then sell the bits individually. And what then do you do with the 9/10ths of the sprue that doesn't sell nearly as well as the 1/10th that's desirable? That's right, you throw it away and charge extra for the good bits to cover it. Just like bits sites do already.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tagboard Wizard wrote:How do you feel about someone playing an off chapter of space marines, so they can be played as the verity of specific codexs? I.E. Mortifactors (an Ultra smurfs successor chapter) being played as DA or BT. naturally you would have to get Mortifactor 'Neophytes' and such, but is that abusing the rules in any way?

I'd feel that he was being very clever at maximising the amount of variety he got out of his army.

Also, the rules are not affected one jot by the colour of the paint scheme so how could it be abusing them?

Tagboard Wizard wrote:In tourny play, I wouldn't see it as an issue, since they are fairly spaced between themselves, and I would be no more frustrated then if someone had switched out the army. In casual however, I would feel as though the player was pressing dangerously into 'Win at All Costs!' kind of mentality.

The mentality is what it is (WAAC or just seeking variety) regardless of whether he's got an army of beautifully painted minis or an army of paper cut-outs. If he had the money to buy every army that he wanted to use and to pay to have them all built and painted would that make the mentality any different?

As long as all upgrades are modelled and they look like what they are ment to. For example, all my meltaguns are plasma guns with flamed ends stuck on the ends, as the SW sprue doesn't have a meltagun.

GW would make a lot of people happy if they made the current Melta gun and Plasma gun packs in Finecost, then made Blaster, Lance, and other Heavy Weapon kits available in blisters.

As for sprue real estate, people are saying that Devastators couldn't possibly come with all of the weapon options...IG Heavy Weapon Teams do, and they're generally clunkier as they require unique arms for every heavy weapon.

IG Heavy Weapons Team are 3 models with 4 options.
Devastators (the relevant ones anyway) are 4 models with 5 options.

Quite a difference. When you add in the need for the rest of the Devastators and the Sergeant it just becomes worse.

This reminds me of the poster (name eludes me, and is irrelevant) that whined about Devastators not having 4 Missile Launchers, "as that was clearly the most popular option".
Sigh *slaps forehead*

Nuggz - so you want to waste 16 weapons? I assume youre happy with GW spending 60k recutting and molding 2 sprues to satisfy a handful of gamers who cant find missiles elsewhere?

I dont.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:As for sprue real estate, people are saying that Devastators couldn't possibly come with all of the weapon options...IG Heavy Weapon Teams do, and they're generally clunkier as they require unique arms for every heavy weapon.

It's not that they couldn't possibly do it... just that it would be a much more expensive kit if they did.

The IG heavy weapons take up much less room on the sprue, as their weapons are smaller. They're also less wasteful since you generally need a lot more of them in an army... buying a heavy weapons squad gives you a whole bunch of heavy weapons that can be spread throughout your army. A Marine Devastator box by contrast would give you a whole bunch of heavy weapons that most armies would have absolutely no need for, since you just can't fit that many infantry heavy weapons into a normal sized Marine army.

insaniak wrote:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:As for sprue real estate, people are saying that Devastators couldn't possibly come with all of the weapon options...IG Heavy Weapon Teams do, and they're generally clunkier as they require unique arms for every heavy weapon.

It's not that they couldn't possibly do it... just that it would be a much more expensive kit if they did.

The IG heavy weapons take up much less room on the sprue, as their weapons are smaller. They're also less wasteful since you generally need a lot more of them in an army... buying a heavy weapons squad gives you a whole bunch of heavy weapons that can be spread throughout your army. A Marine Devastator box by contrast would give you a whole bunch of heavy weapons that most armies would have absolutely no need for, since you just can't fit that many infantry heavy weapons into a normal sized Marine army.

If I was buying Devastators, I wouldn't mind shelling out the extra cash for the heavy weapons. That's what you're paying for anyway. You could just as easily throw the extras on cheaper Tactical Marines to make more Devastators. Maybe the solution is a "Devastators upgrade box" that is nothing but heavy weapon arms and backpacks, sort of like the Black Templar upgrade kit: no complete models, just bits. As for the size of the weapons, I don't have a Devastators boxed set so I can't really speak to that, but I'll use the IG Cadian Command Squad sprue as an example...

A ton of space is taken up by tassels for the Regimental Standards. Two standards are included on the sprue. A bunch of real-estate is also taken up by canteens and a vox, of which you will have tons of leftovers if you buy infantry boxes which are pretty necessary for an IG army.

They could easily drop one of the Regimental Standards and some of the knick-nacks and include more special weapon options.


I'll sum up my feelings on the matter like this: instead of including flavorful "character" bits, they should focus on including bits that are actually meaningful in gameplay. For the Valkyrie kit, they could easily have ditched a couple of the interior pieces and included the parts necessary for making a Vendetta.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:You could just as easily throw the extras on cheaper Tactical Marines to make more Devastators.

That was my point, though: How often does anybody field more than a single squad of Devastators?

insaniak wrote:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:You could just as easily throw the extras on cheaper Tactical Marines to make more Devastators.

That was my point, though: How often does anybody field more than a single squad of Devastators?

C:SM don't, but BA players often do. The Long Fangs boxed set is basically the equivalent of the Devastators box, and everyone runs 4-5x MLs in those squads. What you end up with is an overinflated bitz market, crappy conversions, or illegal recasting.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:GW would make a lot of people happy if they made the current Melta gun and Plasma gun packs in Finecost, then made Blaster, Lance, and other Heavy Weapon kits available in blisters.

As for sprue real estate, people are saying that Devastators couldn't possibly come with all of the weapon options...IG Heavy Weapon Teams do, and they're generally clunkier as they require unique arms for every heavy weapon.

I'd be happy with this as well. It also helps reinforce the WYSIWYG. So, when people want to have 5 missile launchers, or 5 heavy bolters, or what not they can easily. It just seems so big business to me and well I suppose GW is the big business of the war gaming world.

Crom -and again, it really isnt. Your premise has no basis in reality.

GW dont give yoiu every weapon in a devastator box set for simple economics when they designed the sprue all those years ago,and nothing more.

I think it's highly situational. I usually just want my opponent to be clear about what they are fielding, and for their army to not look like crap.

That is actually my biggest gripe with Proxies and non WYSIWYG armies. I don't really mind having to remember a few extra details, I don't even care if its a lot of details. What really pisses me off about these armies though, is the fact that they have a very high chance of looking like a half-assed, unpainted, unfinished, assortment of random crap, that has been thrown together without any thought or effort.

If someone was to present me with a nice, finished, well painted, BA army. But instead of using Meltaguns in their assault squads they had instead used ordinary boltguns painted bright orange. Maybe they even fluffed it out by saying that these guys actually carry boltguns with special experimental melta ammunition, which has the same profile as meltaguns... Then yeah that's fine, because it looks fine and they've put some effort into making it clear and cohesive.

I would much prefer that to someone fielding and unpainted or unfinished army that was WYSIWYG, but had the weapons and jump packs stuck on with Blu-tack.

I think this is kind of an extension of the rule of cool (though in this case perhaps it is more the rule of 'uncool'). If you are using a decent proxy which looks good then I think more people are likely to accept it, and make allowances. If you are using plastic Genestealers to represent sternguard then you might need to go die in a fire.

I obey WYSIWYG. I just had to surgically remove meltabombs from a dozen Seraphim, killing the paintjob on their backpacks in the process. Thanks, Cruddace.

Regarding other people, it varies - I tend to be fairly easy going with friends, or folks who give me a full, written army list including upgrades for me to refer to. Folks who just ream off a list of 'count-as' as a game starts, I politely ask them to write it all down. My sister, who also plays, takes rolls of 3mm adhesive tape of weird and wonderful patterns and varieties, and invites folks who want to avoid WYSIWYG to attach bits to the bases of models that aren't as they appear to be, so she can keep track.

I play Necrons...


I wish I had to obey WYSIWYG

nosferatu1001 wrote:Crom -and again, it really isnt. Your premise has no basis in reality.

GW dont give yoiu every weapon in a devastator box set for simple economics when they designed the sprue all those years ago,and nothing more.

There is no empirical evidence to say my premise is not realistic. GW hasn't done much to modernize their business model. They could make huge profit margins off of accessory sales, booster blisters, and the like, as well as things like ebooks for their books.

They don't, they say buy boxed sets, why is that? It is because their business model is for profit off of their product as is. It is because they don't care about expanding sales and make more money long term, they want to hike prices and product limit to make money now short term. Any basic business course could show you this, it is not like I am making this stuff up.

And now I am officially done with my opinions.

good chat

Actually, you're entirely wrong. Do you know why the bitz service, which they ran for many years, closed? It lost money. Exactly what you wanted lost them money.

Secondly, you dont have the first clue it seems about the economics of generating plastic models (molds are more expensive than you would think) and actually stocking them: retail space is expensive.

Another case in point, just to prove your opinion wrong again: the plastic rhino, prior to the current one, broke even the year it was withdrawn. Their margins are horrible. Retail is expensive.

Finally: none of what you posted, AT ALL, addresses your central flawed premise: that WYSIWYG is a requirement to boost sales.

We have proven, time and time again, that this is wrong.

Wow. I mean Wow. What alot of dumb high school bully jocks in here.

Is this your way of becoming a High School jock by telling people how they are inferior to you because they like proxies?

There is a few people here who don't like proxies but do not say that others have to abide, but there are alot of people here who do not like proxies saying they have to abide by them.

How come it's ok in the BRB that says it's ok to use proxies and they encourage this sort of thing? I clearly remember when, GW has said, use the shoe box for a Rhino or Land Crusader, or a Pop can as a drop pod.

So basically you are becoming a bully or the Jock that you always got picked on in High School when you say it's not ok to do this, when clearly GW says it's is ok to do so.

Geeze grown adults and their plastic toy solidiers.

Of the three stores I usually play at all three would definitly tell you to take your trash off the gaming table if you are drop-podding pop cans. Two of them have those huge yellow and red letters we're all too familiar with above their window fronts.