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 noticed another thread where some people were insisting that every weapon that a model possesses must be physically present in order to fulfil WYSIWYG requirements. I understand that this prevents a player from giving his model, say, a chainsword and a thunder hammer, only modelling one of them, and then surprising the opponent by attacking with a weapon that they forgot he had. However, what happens if I fail to include a weapon that a model has no option but to take? Is the model forbidden from using a weapon that he cannot logically not have? Is the entire model or unit excluded from my army for having an illegal weapon selection?

I first started thinking about this when modelling tactical marines, mostly because I was too lazy to stick grenades onto every one. Can my opponent claim that since I removed all of the models with grenades that I am not allowed to throw one? Can I counter with the argument that every model comes with grenades whether I want them or not and so I cannot chose not to have them? Or say that they are in his backpack?

What about bolt pistols? Again, tactical marines get them no matter what, plus in this case the kit does not come with 10 bolt pistols that I can stick onto my models.

I know that reasonable opponents probably aren't going to care, but I want to know how to handle the unreasonable ones

Depends on whom you play with/tournament. WYSIWYG itself isn't official rule. Nor is there rule regarding what models to use so T-34's as Leman russes would be valid as such. Now in practice you will struggle to find opponents for 1/72 army men as IG soldiers so there's some level of WYSIWYG in practice. How strict however is up to each group.

Here generally standard pistols and grenades etc don't have to show but upgrades yes. That however is fairly irrelevant for you as same rules won't apply there.

So basically. Ask your opponents/tournaments you plan to enter

Bilge Rat wrote:
I noticed another thread where some people were insisting that every weapon that a model possesses must be physically present in order to fulfil WYSIWYG requirements. I understand that this prevents a player from giving his model, say, a chainsword and a thunder hammer, only modelling one of them, and then surprising the opponent by attacking with a weapon that they forgot he had. However, what happens if I fail to include a weapon that a model has no option but to take? Is the model forbidden from using a weapon that he cannot logically not have? Is the entire model or unit excluded from my army for having an illegal weapon selection?

I first started thinking about this when modelling tactical marines, mostly because I was too lazy to stick grenades onto every one. Can my opponent claim that since I removed all of the models with grenades that I am not allowed to throw one? Can I counter with the argument that every model comes with grenades whether I want them or not and so I cannot chose not to have them? Or say that they are in his backpack?

What about bolt pistols? Again, tactical marines get them no matter what, plus in this case the kit does not come with 10 bolt pistols that I can stick onto my models.

I know that reasonable opponents probably aren't going to care, but I want to know how to handle the unreasonable ones

By strict RAW, a model does not need to have any weapons modeled on it, and it's only by matter of an oft-unspoken social contract that we agree that models have what they look like they have. If a specific tourney or gaming store plays strictly WYSIWYG, you'll need to ask the TO/store what is and isn't considered acceptable. If you run into an unreasonable person outside of those two stipulations, then it's your choice as to whether or not you want to play them (or play them again if you discover this during play), and that will be your best way of handling it. Unreasonable people are rarely unreasonable in only one aspect of the game.

What You See Is What You Get means exactly what it says. So yes, if you're adhering to it strictly, everything that can be modeled should be modeled.


But as said above, just how strictly it is adhered to varies, as it's a convention rather than a rule, and different people have very different ideas on how important it is.


As for how to handle the 'unreasonable' players - as with anything else, the game is going to go better if you stick to playing against people looking for something similar out of the game to yourself. The way to handle those with vastly different views on how the game is best played is to not play against them. Or accept that it's likely neither of you are going to have a particularly enjoyable experience.

If somebody insists you should have strict WYSIWYG for compulsory weapons, ask if he has included a close combat weapon on every single one of his models since the latest FAQ indicates all models come with a close combat weapon.

For tournaments, you'll have to check with the TO's, but usually people are okay if you don't have the mandatory equipment on your model (which really comes down to it being GW's fault for not including all the mandatory equipment in the first place).

If someone's just trying to be TFG on insisting you have mandatory equipment modeled, just tell him you don't have it modeled but it's there as it's mandatory. If he can't deal with that and doesn't want to play you, you're better off not playing against him because he'll undoubtedly cause other issues during your game to take away your enjoyment of it.

 doctortom wrote:
If somebody insists you should have strict WYSIWYG for compulsory weapons, ask if he has included a close combat weapon on every single one of his models since the latest FAQ indicates all models come with a close combat weapon.

I think the intent on that FAQ was that anyone can try to fight in melee even if it meant using their bare fists (hence the S user AP 0). So, unless someone intentionally modeled their models without fists/claw/legs they normally come with, everyone technically has "close combat weapon" equipped as per WYSIWYG.

Another way to look at this is for Bolt Pistols/Grenades on Tactical Marines. They all have them as default, but the kit does not have enough pistols/grenades for each and every model.
So even GW doesn't care if you model everything with it's default wargear. And GW being the highest "official" should be enough. Most TOs (i.e. every single reasonable TO) also agree with this.

-

 skchsan wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
If somebody insists you should have strict WYSIWYG for compulsory weapons, ask if he has included a close combat weapon on every single one of his models since the latest FAQ indicates all models come with a close combat weapon.

I think the intent on that FAQ was that anyone can try to fight in melee even if it meant using their bare fists (hence the S user AP 0). So, unless someone intentionally modeled their models without fists/claw/legs they normally come with, everyone technically has "close combat weapon" equipped as per WYSIWYG.

True, but it doesn't say that, and if you're dealing with TFG insisting on modelling mandatory equipment then bringing it up should be fair game.

 Yarium wrote:

By strict RAW, a model does not need to have any weapons modeled on it, and it's only by matter of an oft-unspoken social contract that we agree that models have what they look like they have.

I agree and would like to add that this 'social contract' is to have your models visually show what they have....specifically that is different from the default build.
If a Marine is modeled with just a Bolter, we can all assume it has a Bolter, Bolt Pistol and grenades. As this is the default build, regardless of not having the pistol and grenades modeled.
But if you have 5 Bolter Marines and just say one of them has a Plasma gun, without actually modeling a Plasma gun, you have broken that "social contract" for WYSIWYG

But no one should give you flak for not modeling the pistols and grenades, as those are perfectly well assumed

-

For me there's two other factors to how strict WYSIWYG should be:

1.
How new the player is. If they e just started their army and want to try out a couple of things they don't yet have the right bits for then I don't mind really. So long as there aren't too many things to remember!

2.
Size of the game. In a small game where you have less to think about I'm less bothered about it. In big games with a lot going on you're asking more of your opponent to remember this kind of thing.

is it clear what has what - all my marines have boltguns boltpistols chainswords. = clear its a marine thetefore has x


all my marines have boltguns boltpistols chainswords except one who has a melta. = not clear therefore is melta visible the answer to which determines wysiwyg

Mostly wysiwyg is only considered an issue with conversions ir models with weapons not coresponding to their armament. not correctly modelled standard models

Just use common sense and gentlemanly conduct...

Oh...wait...40k...

ValentineGames wrote:
Just use common sense and gentlemanly conduct...

Oh...wait...40k...

In my experience, most people do in practice.

The level of arguments online do not usually represent real face to face situations, in 40k or in any other matter.

Not to say that 'TFG's don't exists, just that there's less of them than you might think.

The issue comes up when you or your opponent says, “yes, my Dreadnought is what you see,” and the Dread in question has an Assault Cannon, but then later on you or your opponent goes, “and now my Dreadnought is shooting it’s Multi-Melta”. To which argument ensues. That’s where WYSIWYG comes in.

“No, your Flamers aren’t Meltas just because I showed up with Tanks instead of the infantry you thought I was bringing, I don’t care what you wrong down on your army list while we were setting up terrain.”

SJ

Edit: stupid autocorrect.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The issue comes up when you or your opponent says, “yes, my Dreadnought is what you see,” and the Dread in question has an Assault Cannon, but then later on you or your opponent goes, “and now my Dreadnought is shooting it’s Multi-Melta”. To which argument ensues. That’s where WYSIWYG comes in.

“No, your Flamers aren’t Meltas just because I showed up with Tanks instead of the infantry you thought I was bringing, I don’t care what you wrong down on your army list while we were setting up terrain.”

SJ

Edit: stupid autocorrect.

This here is shenanigans of the highest order. Which is why our group goes bye what is written on the army list in question. We are pretty loose by what models a person chooses to use. Yet, most of us try to keep it WYSIWYG as much as possible just to avoid confusing ourselves in the first place.

I recall the sense of panic I had when building the contents of my very first Warhammer 40k box. Look as I might, I could not find the bolt pistols for my marines anywhere! I remember studying each sprue intently to try to find them before getting really mad and deciding that Games-Workshop had forgotten to put them in the box. I don't recall how long it took me to look at the models in the photos and realize there were no such pieces.

It's always been a case of non-standard equipment must be modelled in my gaming area. got a marine waving a banner? (or in my case a grot waving a white flag)? we'll assume he has standard equipment. conversions for standard equipment models are easy to keep track of. But if you have a unit with flamers who doesn't really have flamers, it can get a bit tricky.

I imagine the space marine players have had WYSIWYG issues ever since close combat weapons went more in-depth. whether you have a sword, axe, mace, chainsword or knife now matters. I have a lot of marines with chainswords modelled on them, I don't know if that will have an impact if I ever get the codex and try to use them.

Technically your model’s Fists still count as a CCW per RAW, so every model in the game with hands/claws are armed with a CCW. In the case of a Chainsword, though ...

SJ

Do I need to then model a knife on all my IG vehicles? If they have to have a close combat weapon I need to put it on.

I think a basilisk would look odd with a bayonet! (though a DKoK one may be appropriate).

Even hardcore WAAC players I've found are pretty lax about this as long as you're coming close to accurate representation. Your fancy Power Maul can be fine as a Thunder Hammer substitute as long as you're consistent in not using that same weapon elsewhere as a Power Maul.

 Kcalehc wrote:
Do I need to then model a knife on all my IG vehicles? If they have to have a close combat weapon I need to put it on.

I think a basilisk would look odd with a bayonet! (though a DKoK one may be appropriate).

The early developers commentary suggested that a tanks tracks can be envisioned as a rationale for its close combat attacks, though I for one think bayonetted tanks are absolutely the way forward!

Chainsaws instead of tracks

I think you should model the tank commander with a spear.

Leman Russ tanks should have plug-bayonets available for their Battle Cannons.

 Kcalehc wrote:
Do I need to then model a knife on all my IG vehicles? If they have to have a close combat weapon I need to put it on.

I think a basilisk would look odd with a bayonet! (though a DKoK one may be appropriate).

Maybe not a bayonet, but there's plenty of pics of real world tanks & guns with assorted kit - including things like axes & shovels - strapped on their hulls. I don't imagine the IG versions wouldn't be similar.

I would say no, only since most of the starter set kits GW has produced in the past have left out compulsory weapons before (like grenades and pistols). They've gotten better at it now, with the Primaris actually having pistol holsters, (and the plague Marines not getting pistols at all) but the normal Marines never had any.