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.

I understand we need to use Citadel miniatures, and I know we still need to abide by opponent and Tourney Organizer permission, but...

Is WYSIWYG in the 6E book anywhere? I couldn't find it....

coredump wrote:
I understand we need to use Citadel miniatures, and I know we still need to abide by opponent and Tourney Organizer permission, but...

Is WYSIWYG in the 6E book anywhere? I couldn't find it....

Well WYSIWYG is required for a Power Weapon to work under the current rules at least. That is the only section in the RULES part of the book that specifies a requirement for the rules to function based off model appearance.

Other than that, WYSIWYG has been a gaming convention agreed to by two players, or established by an event.

WYSIWYG is a wishy washy rule at best.
The general principle is that a model is considered to have all it's basic equipment, so you don't have to model that but any upgrades need to be clearly there.
So for example I put a meltagun on a Grey Hunter,
I need to show he has a meltagun but I may not have to model the bolt pistol, chain sword, frag and krack grenades.

A reasonable TO would go by that. A total ass would expect every model to have every little piece of wargear clearly shown as it would make many models overly bulky.

If a model has an upgrade, it must show it with the WYSIWYG rule.

It is also preferred that a model without any upgrades show some of its basic equipment.


The spirit of the rule is, "the model must be easily identifiable visually and models accross the army should show continuity"

But to answer the question, I couldnt find that rule in 6th either.

It's never been a hard and fast blanket rule. As nkelsh said, WYWISYG has always been more of a gaming convention than a rule of the game.

Insaniak's right, it was only ever a little box in 5th Edition anyway. And besides, in competitive play, you'll have a TO to deal with this kind of stuff and in most friendly play, WYSIWYG isn't as much of an issue.

Technically, in 5th ed only characters had to be WYSIWYG.

 insaniak wrote:
It's never been a hard and fast blanket rule. As nkelsh said, WYWISYG has always been more of a gaming convention than a rule of the game.

Did 3rd ed not have some tight wysiwyg stuff, to the extent that 3rd ed daemonhunters had to say that it was cool for an inquisitor's stuff could be on his retinue.

Some codices had WYSIWYG in the entry.

In fact, IIRC it is a rule in the Eldar unit composition that EVERY unit must be WYSIWYG. So it was actually requiring Swooping Hawks to model their Haywire grenades.

"look at the model" seems like enough WYSIWYG to me.

If I dont see a weapon, he dont have one

in WYSIWYG I have a model with a holstered pistol. As standard the model has a bolt pistol, but can I upgrade it to a plasma pistol?

grr wrote:
in WYSIWYG I have a model with a holstered pistol. As standard the model has a bolt pistol, but can I upgrade it to a plasma pistol?

A lot of people will complain if a nondescript holstered pistol was used to represent an upgraded plasma pistol because it doesn't give the player any visual cue what the model is supposed to be or equipped with.

I mean I could basically model my characters with long flowing cloaks that hide their arms and say 'oh they have weapons under the cloak, those weapons are a power sword and melta gun.' That doesn't help my opponent and is an awkward thing to claim.

Most people expect if you upgrade a weapon, then your model is waving it around like a kid showing off his christmas gifts.

Of course, the only rules right now which are hardcoded into the rulebooks are Power weapons and the entire eldar codex.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Did 3rd ed not have some tight wysiwyg stuff, to the extent that 3rd ed daemonhunters had to say that it was cool for an inquisitor's stuff could be on his retinue.

Most of the codexes mentioned that upgrades had to be shown on the model. But again, it was never a blanket rule that applied to everything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:
A lot of people will complain if a nondescript holstered pistol was used to represent an upgraded plasma pistol because it doesn't give the player any visual cue what the model is supposed to be or equipped with.

From my experience, 'a lot' is overstating it. So long as it is pointed out before the game, most people won't care.

I mean I could basically model my characters with long flowing cloaks that hide their arms and say 'oh they have weapons under the cloak, those weapons are a power sword and melta gun.'

You could... but that wouldn't be quite the same thing.


Particularly now where so many models have access to 3 or more weapons, holstered pistols are pretty much accepted in the same way that most players don't expect grenades to actually be represented on the model.

 insaniak wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Did 3rd ed not have some tight wysiwyg stuff, to the extent that 3rd ed daemonhunters had to say that it was cool for an inquisitor's stuff could be on his retinue.

Most of the codexes mentioned that upgrades had to be shown on the model. But again, it was never a blanket rule that applied to everything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:
A lot of people will complain if a nondescript holstered pistol was used to represent an upgraded plasma pistol because it doesn't give the player any visual cue what the model is supposed to be or equipped with.

From my experience, 'a lot' is overstating it. So long as it is pointed out before the game, most people won't care.

I mean I could basically model my characters with long flowing cloaks that hide their arms and say 'oh they have weapons under the cloak, those weapons are a power sword and melta gun.'

You could... but that wouldn't be quite the same thing.


Particularly now where so many models have access to 3 or more weapons, holstered pistols are pretty much accepted in the same way that most players don't expect grenades to actually be represented on the model.

Holsters representing upgrades is confusing and a burden on opponents. At tourneys, I would say it doesn't actually meet WYSIWYG and have seen TOs agree. A holstered pistol usually represents basic gear, not upgraded gear. I guarantee in most situations where a model has 3 weapons, at least one of them is a default weapon, and that is the one assumed to be there. The other two are expected to be shown.

Just because people don't smash your head on the table and respond to your 'look at my holstered plasma pistol' with a quiet Marge Simpson grrr of disapproval doesn't mean people 'Don't care' or even agree. They basically don't want to respond to a players rudeness with more rudeness and just move on. That is a far distance from not caring as a lot of people *DO* care but begrudgingly accept it.

nkelsch wrote:
Holsters representing upgrades is confusing and a burden on opponents.

Technically, sure. But particularly where it's just one or two models, it's not actually that hard to keep straight, and just doesn't bother most players.

Just because people don't smash your head on the table and respond to your 'look at my holstered plasma pistol' with a quiet Marge Simpson grrr of disapproval doesn't mean people 'Don't care' or even agree. They basically don't want to respond to a players rudeness with more rudeness and just move on. That is a far distance from not caring as a lot of people *DO* care but begrudgingly accept it.

Speaking as one of the people who doesn't care, in nearly 20 years of playing this game I have never felt even a faint urge to resort to violence over WYSIWYG issues, nor have I ever felt that an opponent's army not being WYSIWYG was particularly offensive. When confronted with an opponent who points out the these models aren't quite what they appear, I make a mental note of it, say something to the effect of 'no problem' and get on with the game... an attitude mirrored by the vast majority of my opponents over those nearly 2 decades of gaming.

Where you play may certainly be different, and the people you're playing may take it all a bit more seriously... but that attitude is definitely not universal.

Yeah, but if all my opponents models have holsters and he insists that this one dude is the one with the holsterd plasma pistol we might have trouble.

Unless the PP sergeant is also waving a sword around. I just need to be able to tell who's who.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, but if all my opponents models have holsters and he insists that this one dude is the one with the holsterd plasma pistol we might have trouble.

It really depends on the specific situation. Ultimately, the purpose of WYSIWYG is to make it easier for your opponent to remember what is what. If your entire army has holsters, and one specific Sergeant has a plasma pistol while everyone else has bolt pistols, that's really not hard to keep track of. If it's a scattering of models throughout the army, that might be a different story if there isn't some other easy way of keeping track of them.

I can distinctly remember it being in 5th and 3rd rulebook. Never played 4th, and doesn't appear to be in 6th. Make of that what you will.