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've seen a few discussions on here about this recently so I thought a poll would be interesting.

I've just built, and am in the process of painting, a WYSIWYG list. Not strict WYSIWYG though, I play a bit fast and loose with the likes of grenades, pistols and relics (and wargear on the datasheet that GW didn't supply with the model).

What do you like to field?

Non on this list

i try to WYSIWYG as much as possible but im not going to sit there and rake my self or others over the coals if the conversion or the bits are too hard to do or obtain.

especially small things like nades and pistols

relics though i mean you are taking it you should make them look bitchin

What I like to build/paint is full WYSIWYG as possible, but what I like to play against is more liberal than that. As long as I don't constantly have to remember all your power swords are power fists, all your power axes are power mauls, all your flamers are plasma and all your grenade launchers are meltas every game because you don't want to build models to match that loadout, I'm pretty happy.

Proper modeling of special wargear is important to quick and easy game play after all.

With Tyranids many of the options on my datasheet do not have a corresponding bit. Additionally, many options for modeling didn't have corresponding rules until recently. Playing strict WYSIWYG with Tyranids is nearly impossible (unless you limit your unit selection greatly, and you just started playing today so you can use the appropriate bits, rather than playing rule of cool with older models.)

I think there's probably something between option 1 and 2....

 LunarSol wrote:
I think there's probably something between option 1 and 2....

You're might be right right. Do you mean like mostly WYSIWYG except for new units you're trying out with similar models? I'd say that's still the WYSIWYG option if you intend to buy those units for use in the long term.

Crunch wysiwyg

I like to mix lasguns with my autoguns on cultists, but since the Stats are the same I consider it wysiwyg.

But everything I buy with points I made sure is on the models. I even paint Marks on the models that use marks every game.

 Iur_tae_mont wrote:
Crunch wysiwyg

I like to mix lasguns with my autoguns on cultists, but since the Stats are the same I consider it wysiwyg.

Yeah, I do this sort of thing too. My Reivers have chainswords because that's an iconic Space Marine weapon and the rules are the same.

Isn't counts-as a totally different spectrum?

If I use my Exodite Wraithlord as a counts-as Wraithlord, but it has the weapon, both Brightlances, both Flamers, and looks like a T8 walker, I would argue it's WYSIWYG despite being a guy riding a dinosaur instead of a giant anthropomorphic chunk of wraithbone.

Similarly, if Cultists don't have Lasguns as an option, and autoguns are the closest option Cultists have in both looks and stats, isn't that both WYSIWYG counts-as?

In general, I feel basic wargear doesn't "have" to always be modeled. A Marine always has a Bolter and Grenades, for example, so those don't always need to be shown on the model.
Unless the model has swapped basic wargear for an upgrade, in which that should always be modeled.

Due to editions consistently changing rules and makes X better than Y this edition, but next edition Y is better than X, I tend to magnetize options

-

When I'm playing with friends, we tend not to care to much about proxies (many years ago, we used to paper-hammer), though I'm trying to move closer to fully being WYSIWYG with magnets and such so that I can go to more tournaments and so there's fewer disclaimers during pickup games with new people.

A lot of times my list is fairly WYSIWYG. I usually try to convert a man to be the guy I want [my regimental advisers, for example].

Sometimes, though, there's a few things off. Currently, I don't equip vox casters, but one in ten of my troopers has one, since I made them all when I did want to have vox casters.

My Sister Superiors generally never have their modeled loadouts because they came in fixed loadouts and are hard to change. Same for Seraphim Inferno Pistols.

A lot of my tanks have modeled pintle mounts that I don't actually have in the list too.

But for the most part, things are very close to WYSIWYG.

I don't like having anything that isn't WYSIWYG.

I don't care about minor wargear like grenades so I've gone for the middle category, but guns I'm pretty particular about.

Just feels wrong to me otherwise!

I use WYSIWYG for the most important stuff, like weapons, different armour or equipment that is important, such as melta bombs, vox units, banners etc.

Stuff like relics and standard grenades I don't bother so much, as relics are swappable and modeling them all wouldn't be viable and grenades could be in pockets, pouches, robes etc.

I play Not WYSIWYG because that is what the rules are.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I play Not WYSIWYG because that is what the rules are.

Care to elaborate?

Magnetizing weapons are very satisfying and fun activity for me. WYSIWYG on wargear that needs to be differentiated is what I play.

The WYSIWYG chain.

The goal of the game is to win
The object of the game is to have fun.
The guide to having fun is to have clear rules and easy interactions.
The path to easy interactions is to avoid confusion, as confusion leads to arguments.
The way to avoid confusion is to have clear knowledge of the state of the game, the rules, and the models.

So how are you going to make sure your opponent has clear knowledge of the game state, the rules and the models?

Counts as is wysiwyg when the models cobsistently representbwhat they are supposed to represent. So if you wanna use ig for cultists or cultists as ig then sure this is possible if it is consistent and the models show appropriate gear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stux wrote:
I don't like having anything that isn't WYSIWYG.

I don't care about minor wargear like grenades so I've gone for the middle category, but guns I'm pretty particular about.

Just feels wrong to me otherwise!

Ditto.

Strict WYSIWYG.

I am playing mostly N17 where you just have a dozen or even less models. It is also fairly easy with the FW weapon packs to build any kind of ganger you want without having a single duplicate in your gang.

 Brother Castor wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I play Not WYSIWYG because that is what the rules are.

Care to elaborate?

WYSIWYG isn’t in the rules.
BCB maintains he only plays 100% by the rules (see his lengthy signature of yawnsome nitpicking and errors).
Ergo, BCB doesn’t require WYSIWYG.

My army is 100% WYSIWYG, no idea about other armies. Never felt like checking 150 IG dudes of my opponent for having frags on each one of them.

My Inquisition and Night Lords armies are both extensively converted/kitbashed.

There are no official models for Inquisitorial acolytes, so they're kitbashed from loads of different GW kits and a few third-party bits. A couple of my Ordo Xenos acolytes are using DE splinter pistols as counts-as needle pistols. My inquisitors are conversions based on, respectively, a Sister of Silence, an IG comissar, a Chaos warrior and a Stormcast Eternal.

My NL 'cultists' are atheist freedom-fighters who would be executed if they ever actually started worshipping the Chaos Gods. They have a mix of lasguns and autoguns, because they're identical in rules terms anyway. They're also kitbashed, because the regular Cultist models are completely inappropriate for my army's backstory.

But I also have even minor wargear like holstered pistols and grenades modelled completely WYSIWYG on pretty much every model that is supposed to have them.

So which of the three options is that? I don't seem to fit any of them...

Unit type and primary weapons, some select upgrades if they are large in visual nature (eg wings).

Otherwise things like grenades, seals, scrolls, sights, marker lights, extra carapace etc.. These things are all so small that most players won't even notice them on the models during play. Furthermore some are modelled on models that don't have them (eg many marine models have seals and scrolls on them without having seal or scroll upgrades) so its not even a uniform appearance through the range.

Furthermore its a practical element of gaming. Things like minor upgrades or even powers/relics can be chopped and changed a lot between different army builds. It's totally unreasonable to enforce them to be modelled becuase it would mean you'd either only ever play one fixed army or you'd have to buy and build and paint an insane number of models to keep a variety of choice in your army.
Not to mention that many upgrades don't have a part on the sprue to represent them, so you'd have to convert which would, again, mean a lack of uniformity.

Now you can do some things to help on medium upgrades. Eg for Tyranids you might have a "leader" gaunt that you model with the upgrades that represents the major upgrades the unit has using the options in the box. That way you have a handful of the leader models and then swap them into a standard brood to represent the upgrades.



In general people mostly just want to know the unit type and weapons on the model - your army list can cover all the myriad of upgrade choices.



My opinion is that that above is the best minimal level of WYSIWYG to operate with and expect from your opponent. It's sensible and practical and doesn't impose insane requirements on them.

I also note that there are many upgrades and things (eg psychic abilities or spells) that are never modelled on models anyway. So there are already things that we have to check for and have no trouble with checking on. So its not as if what I propose above goes beyond what gamers are used too.


Again if someone puts everything on the model that is fantastic, its impressive. But I don't do it and I don't expect it of my opponents as I can see the sensible real life limitations on such an approach to wargaming.



NOTE this is not including proxy gaming for one-off fights or for those with significantly limited budgets and friendly games etc... This accounts for ideal situations.

Not bothered as long as its vaugely what it seems to be

 Strg Alt wrote:
Strict WYSIWYG.

I am playing mostly N17 where you just have a dozen or even less models. It is also fairly easy with the FW weapon packs to build any kind of ganger you want without having a single duplicate in your gang.

Necromunda does actually trump what I've said above - what I've said I think applies best to larger games like 40K and Sigmar; but Necromunda is smaller scale; it is indeed more possible to ugprade your models and show them quite accurate to their upgrades. Then again there are loads of growth games within that game where one game builds and upgrades your units into the next. So there is still some room for upgrades that you don't model (I mean unless you buy new models and make them up each week for the game - which is dedication and not bad, but, again not something I'd push on other players

 Overread wrote:
eg many marine models have seals and scrolls on them without having seal or scroll upgrades

This might be an edition thing? Because I'm pretty sure seals are purely decorative these days anyway.

Stux wrote:

 Overread wrote:
eg many marine models have seals and scrolls on them without having seal or scroll upgrades

This might be an edition thing? Because I'm pretty sure seals are purely decorative these days anyway.

Might be - my memory of the marine chapters and their upgrades is hazy. However that does highlight another aspect - upgrades being moved in and out of edition. Another reason not to demand such fine level modelling when the core rules make big changes as to what is and isn't even possible to take.

Primary weapons don't move around much to be honest - BARRING - Tyranids which have quite considerable shifts at times in not only what is viable but what is legal to take (which is why if you talk to many Tyranid players they are big advocates of magnets in sockets of Warriors and anything larger).

 Overread wrote:

Stux wrote:

 Overread wrote:
eg many marine models have seals and scrolls on them without having seal or scroll upgrades

This might be an edition thing? Because I'm pretty sure seals are purely decorative these days anyway.

Might be - my memory of the marine chapters and their upgrades is hazy. However that does highlight another aspect - upgrades being moved in and out of edition. Another reason not to demand such fine level modelling when the core rules make big changes as to what is and isn't even possible to take.

Primary weapons don't move around much to be honest - BARRING - Tyranids which have quite considerable shifts at times in not only what is viable but what is legal to take (which is why if you talk to many Tyranid players they are big advocates of magnets in sockets of Warriors and anything larger).

This is true!

I've just started Nids and right now Boneswords are so much better than anything else Warriors can take, it's stupid not to use them. The other melee weapons are sort of garbage by comparison.

Then on the Hive Tyrant for some reason Monstrous Rending Claws are free, and while the other melee weapons are fine they also cost a bunch of points for some reason! So again, there's one clear choice and the others are pretty much redundant.

But in both cases that's only been true in 8th, and could easily be flipped with an FAQ, let alone a new edition!

Yep the flipside is that Tyranids have less specialist role models. So whilst Marines or guard might have a halfdozen different types of detachment with various weapons (eg scout, general, heavy weapon etc..) Tyranids have fewer with more weapon options.

In theory the Warrior is any role it is needed to be from a dedicated close combat unit to a dedicated heavy weapon platform and everything inbetween. Granted the units base stats and the gameplay and the fact that Tyranids do now have some specialist role larger monsters, means that its not perfect generalist; but its still a core aspect of the Tyranid range. Hence why the magnets become far more prominent.