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.

changemod wrote:

 NakedSeamus wrote:
Its not in the 7th book, but even when it was previously what did Necron players have to represent half their upgrades, haha. We have five different crypteks with one generic model, ha! WYSIWYG shouldn't have been enforced as long as their is a clear discussion beforehand.

I have 27 individually modelled Crypteks, so it's hardly impossible.

Just show me to the official GW harp of dissonance and I'll be a happy man.

You would have to be playing some seriously intense WYSIWYG to require Bolt Pistols. By the same anal logic, you can't use X type of model in Y squad because the paint job is incorrect for it etc. Oh and you'd have to have everything painted to chapter standards including company and squad markings. (Blue Librarians, Black Chaplains, Red Techmarines.)

This just seems like so much overkill. Most people are just happy to play the damn game. I say that if you can get models with them on the thigh or something, great. If not, it's a really low priority issue.

AkiraSovu wrote:
Oh and you'd have to have everything painted to chapter standards including company and squad markings. (Blue Librarians, Black Chaplains, Red Techmarines.)

Codex markings haven't actually been that rigid since 2nd edition.

And frankly, I would prefer people to have proper markings on their units... because it makes it a hell of a lot easier to tell units apart on the table. Multiple combats with units that have no way to tell them apart are just a pain.


Which is ultimately exactly the point of WYSIWYG. It's not about being anal. It's about making the game easy to follow for both players, so that you can just get on with playing the damn game.

Just out of curiosity, and to indulge the lone voice in the wilderness, has there ever been a tourney that forces all mandatory gear must also be on the model (aside from general standards that models must be assembled and painted)?

 Bookwrack wrote:
Just out of curiosity, and to indulge the lone voice in the wilderness, has there ever been a tourney that forces all mandatory gear must also be on the model (aside from general standards that models must be assembled and painted)?

The standard for many tournies through to at least 5th edition was for all representable gear except for incidental small stuff like grenades to be represented on the model. How strictly that was enforced varied from tournie to tournie.

I doubt such a tournament ever existed, and if it did I highly doubt any but a tiny amount of the participants cared.

Anyone whining how my marines don't all have Frag and Krak grenades probably isn't going to get any sympathy from a TO.

I've always been in the camp of mandatory wargear (ie bolt pistols on tacticals) being an optional modelling thing; I'm more concerned about being able to tell at a glance what optional upgrades (special weapons, power weapons...) your squad has.

It's also nice to be able to look at a group of models and be able to tell that they are a squad of X; basically, I want your Sternguard to look fancier and HQ units to be unique compared to other units in your army.

skolirvarden wrote:I've always been in the camp of mandatory wargear (ie bolt pistols on tacticals) being an optional modelling thing; I'm more concerned about being able to tell at a glance what optional upgrades (special weapons, power weapons...) your squad has.

It's also nice to be able to look at a group of models and be able to tell that they are a squad of X; basically, I want your Sternguard to look fancier and HQ units to be unique compared to other units in your army.

insaniak wrote:

AkiraSovu wrote:
Oh and you'd have to have everything painted to chapter standards including company and squad markings. (Blue Librarians, Black Chaplains, Red Techmarines.)

Codex markings haven't actually been that rigid since 2nd edition.

And frankly, I would prefer people to have proper markings on their units... because it makes it a hell of a lot easier to tell units apart on the table. Multiple combats with units that have no way to tell them apart are just a pain.


Which is ultimately exactly the point of WYSIWYG. It's not about being anal. It's about making the game easy to follow for both players, so that you can just get on with playing the damn game.

I agree with both points whole-heartedly. And some chapters have specifc markings for [blah blah blah you get the point]. That being said, you have to decide whether you're going to be entirely WYSIWYG or not. If you want it to be EXACTLY what you see, then yeah you can require bolt pistols but you must apply the same logic to -all- aspects. Let's not be half-assing things just to make it easier for ourselves. If this was a tourney and someone tried to get you disqualified for this, and other armies are not EXACTLY WYSIWYG, call them on it. Get the TO to make a ruling.

However, unless your TO is a curmudgeon, you should probably let some things slide. Especially if the base kit did not include these.

For another example, I have had a unit with 4 weapons. Last time I checked they only have 2 hands. I can only model so many things onto a dude.

AkiraSovu wrote:
For another example, I have had a unit with 4 weapons. Last time I checked they only have 2 hands. I can only model so many things onto a dude.

Holsters and slings help. My Grey Hunters all have holstered pistols.

I agree about unit upgrades but there is no way I'm glueing that ugly ass melta bomb on my toys.

Sorry but if you don't believe that a marine has a melta bomb you can just look at my list.

scribbles furiously

See he's got a melta bomb!

Lol

AkiraSovu wrote:

skolirvarden wrote:I've always been in the camp of mandatory wargear (ie bolt pistols on tacticals) being an optional modelling thing; I'm more concerned about being able to tell at a glance what optional upgrades (special weapons, power weapons...) your squad has.

It's also nice to be able to look at a group of models and be able to tell that they are a squad of X; basically, I want your Sternguard to look fancier and HQ units to be unique compared to other units in your army.

insaniak wrote:

AkiraSovu wrote:
Oh and you'd have to have everything painted to chapter standards including company and squad markings. (Blue Librarians, Black Chaplains, Red Techmarines.)

Codex markings haven't actually been that rigid since 2nd edition.

And frankly, I would prefer people to have proper markings on their units... because it makes it a hell of a lot easier to tell units apart on the table. Multiple combats with units that have no way to tell them apart are just a pain.


Which is ultimately exactly the point of WYSIWYG. It's not about being anal. It's about making the game easy to follow for both players, so that you can just get on with playing the damn game.

I agree with both points whole-heartedly. And some chapters have specifc markings for [blah blah blah you get the point]. That being said, you have to decide whether you're going to be entirely WYSIWYG or not. If you want it to be EXACTLY what you see, then yeah you can require bolt pistols but you must apply the same logic to -all- aspects. Let's not be half-assing things just to make it easier for ourselves. If this was a tourney and someone tried to get you disqualified for this, and other armies are not EXACTLY WYSIWYG, call them on it. Get the TO to make a ruling.

Having a basing theme for each squad helps tell them apart at a glance if you don't want to bother with squad markings; obviously you will generally want large amounts of your army on similar styles of bases anyway, but making one squad the 'squad fighting in a rocky part of world X' and another squad the 'just got shelled, so lots of craters' squad works well if done properly. That, or colour code the base rims.

I may or may not have a Devestator squad which occasionally splits up and moonlights as the heavy weapons marine in a group of tactical squads-they all have the devestator squad marking prominantly displayed, but the base rims are colour coded to a different tactical squad each-I make sure it's abundantly clear before playing which scheme applies, and I can't think of any instance where I've used both devestators and heavy weapons marines in tac squads, so it's worked reasonably well.

 insaniak wrote:

AkiraSovu wrote:
Oh and you'd have to have everything painted to chapter standards including company and squad markings. (Blue Librarians, Black Chaplains, Red Techmarines.)

Codex markings haven't actually been that rigid since 2nd edition.

And frankly, I would prefer people to have proper markings on their units... because it makes it a hell of a lot easier to tell units apart on the table. Multiple combats with units that have no way to tell them apart are just a pain.


Which is ultimately exactly the point of WYSIWYG. It's not about being anal. It's about making the game easy to follow for both players, so that you can just get on with playing the damn game.

Really? I've never really had that much of an issue with it. Long as I can tell who has a flamer, even if its a proxy, I'm a happy camper.

Having a basing theme for each squad helps tell them apart at a glance if you don't want to bother with squad markings; obviously you will generally want large amounts of your army on similar styles of bases anyway, but making one squad the 'squad fighting in a rocky part of world X' and another squad the 'just got shelled, so lots of craters' squad works well if done properly. That, or colour code the base rims.

I may or may not have a Devestator squad which occasionally splits up and moonlights as the heavy weapons marine in a group of tactical squads-they all have the devestator squad marking prominantly displayed, but the base rims are colour coded to a different tactical squad each-I make sure it's abundantly clear before playing which scheme applies, and I can't think of any instance where I've used both devestators and heavy weapons marines in tac squads, so it's worked reasonably well.

I do the exact same thing. My solution however is to avoid putting squads that close to each other and to always provide my army list. I'm not responsible for any assumptions you make during your turn, but I will provide you with any information that is considered open knowledge.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Really? I've never really had that much of an issue with it. Long as I can tell who has a flamer, even if its a proxy, I'm a happy camper.

It's not an insurmountable issue, certainly. But not having to remember what everyone is carrying is always going to be easier than having to remember...


When I built my Space Wolf army, part of my incentive for building them completely WYSIWYG was so that I didn't have to keep looking things up. I know from experience with previous armies that when they're not built right, I forget stuff... Much easier to be able to just glance at the models to see which of them have pistols and which don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AkiraSovu wrote:
My solution however is to avoid putting squads that close to each other...

Not always possible where close combats or fall backs are involved.

I am 100% ok with a marine not having some small piece of wargear. Marines start looking really odd when you give them all they are supposed to have, especially space wolves. Give a grey hunter all the grenades, CCW, BP, and bolter and the model will look pretty odd.

 gwarsh41 wrote:
Give a grey hunter all the grenades, CCW, BP, and bolter and the model will look pretty odd.

Not really...

changemod wrote:

 NakedSeamus wrote:
Its not in the 7th book, but even when it was previously what did Necron players have to represent half their upgrades, haha. We have five different crypteks with one generic model, ha! WYSIWYG shouldn't have been enforced as long as their is a clear discussion beforehand.

I have 27 individually modelled Crypteks, so it's hardly impossible.

pics or it didnt happen

 insaniak wrote:

 gwarsh41 wrote:
Give a grey hunter all the grenades, CCW, BP, and bolter and the model will look pretty odd.

Not really...

They are pretty-is that space wolves in a boltgun finish? Tried painting space wolves in the 'typical' blue grey and not sure if I like the look (plus, light colours and I don't work well together), so I've been toying with new schemes.

Since none of the Space Marines in the recent starter sets have bolt pistols modeled, or grenades, it's safe to say they still have them.

More props to people who do model, it sure looks cool. But as we know, models war gear change from codex to codex almost regularly. Some units lose certain wargear.

I for one notice that my Ork Kommandos all have Tank Busta bombs but I have never seen the option in any 3 codexes to take them.

I do my best to model all my guys with special/heavy weapons etc with and additional pistol. But as it's standard wargear its a given that the model will have it. That and have you tried getting enogh pistols to do it, plus grenades, pouches and all the other to drape on a marine.

skolirvarden wrote:
I've always been in the camp of mandatory wargear (ie bolt pistols on tacticals) being an optional modelling thing; I'm more concerned about being able to tell at a glance what optional upgrades (special weapons, power weapons...) your squad has.

It's also nice to be able to look at a group of models and be able to tell that they are a squad of X; basically, I want your Sternguard to look fancier and HQ units to be unique compared to other units in your army.

Exactly so. WYSIWYG is all about the other player knowing, at a quick glance, what he's facing.
If I know what the squad is, and what upgrades have been taken, then everything else is largely irrelevant. I know marines have krak and frag grenades because you don't have the option to remove them...

Where there are options, I'd like to see a visual queue - Chaos Space Marines and Grey Hunters having close combat weapons as well as bolters is the obvious one because it's optional, so if you've got a variation in your army, I need a way to tell who's who without checking your army list every five seconds.

 insaniak wrote:

 kingbobbito wrote:
I do always wonder, when they get into close combat and pull their pistol out, where do they stick their boltgun? Only a handful of mine have straps for them.

The Horus Heresy books mention marines maglocking the bolters to their armour.

I believe this is the answer. The HH books mention them maglocking guns and helmets to their armour when needed. Also it amazes me that 2 people actually said they would not allow the BP to be used under any circumstance....

Noc

as long as we can figure out what is what... then we are all cool.

but we also play open lists and either player can always ask what something is if they arent sure