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.

At what point is it ok to whip out WYSWYG rules, in a pick up game environment. Again, not tournament, but repeatedly getting people throwing these SM soup lists at me where all the models are blue, but THESE 5 are IF and THESE 5 are Ravenguard, and THESE 10 are.....Enough. Stop, you are hurting my soul here with your nonsense.

I'm all for the new life being breathed into SMs, but I'm sick of seeing all smurf lists being played as every other chapter, and I feel it's being used as a competitive advantage now, to trip up opponents. If I call it out I'm "that guy" for expecting my opponent to re-paint all his models now, or somehow alter them. Which makes me feel like a jerk, because some of these are REALLY well done.

How do you play WYSWYG in non-competitive games with the new codexes dropping everywhere? Do you hold a standard or ask your opponent to somehow mark them? Also, if they are playing this way, do you expect them to have the physical rules? Because that came up a few times, and I usually trust BScribe, but now it's just one more straw etc...

Nah that's bs. If you cannot easily distinguish between chapters it's on them to make that possible. I don't care if they're the wrong colors, but if they're a different chapter they need to be a different color from other models.

If they want to paint the bases different colors or w/e that's fine for normal games.

Argh, yeah I'd absolutely hate this. Play guys as what they're painted and stop trying to game the system to your advantage.

Caveat: *obviously* people can do whatever they like with their models, but if someone's trying to use different CTs with guys all painted the same, that indicates to me they're more interested in squeezing whatever advantage they can out of the rules, rather than in having an immersive, enjoyable game, so I personally have no interest in playing with them.

WYSIWYG is not a rule. As long as they are using the correct Citadel™ Miniature for the datasheet it doesn't matter what wargear is represented.

I think that paint is unimportant. Heck outside of space marine armies and the VERY generic colour blocks they work with, most people cannot even ID the different official paint schemes within their own army block let alone others.

GW sort of bungled the rules for 40K by creating different niche armies and then giving them themed stats and then letting you take "soup" armies with different subfactions at the same time. The problem being that some subfaction blocks are great at close combat; others at ranged. So if you've built a close combat segment of the army it kind of pressures you into making a soup force for those additional bonuses.



So I'd never force them to repaint their entire army or collect a half dozen different armies all the same models jsut in different colours. Esp since next edition GW might change all this and make soups near impossible etc...

Instead forget about different marine regiments and simply focus on the most basic and key element of WYSIWYG - that of can you tell one unit from the other.


IF they have 3 tack marine units infront of you, each with different stats, then they should be identifiable from each other.
This could be different backpack colours; a different rim colour on the base; different basing (one might be grass the other stone etc..). Basically some feature that lets you tell one squad from the other. The stats that they then have are easily recoreded on a clearly written army list that can mark which unit is which with their unique marker.

That way you can tell which is a different unit and you can quickly check which is a different "army" (even though with soup its mostly just jumping for the specific special rules - most likely pairing with the weapons - a ranged team having the force that gives better ranged attack values etc...).

I don't think you are being a jerk, since at this point it is really a kind of advantage for them when you as opponent have trouble identifying what is what.
The easy solution I would expect from someone claiming that he does not want to repaint all his models would be to come with a bunch of different coloured little stickers. This way he could slap a little black sticker on all his "counts as Raven guard" minis, a white one on the White Scars etc. (or on the bases if he is afraid of damaging his paint job)

 BaconCatBug wrote:
WYSIWYG is not a rule. As long as they are using the correct Citadel™ Miniature for the datasheet it doesn't matter what wargear is represented.

It might not be in the current rules; but its been in there for years; is in most other wargames and is a socially generally expected element within the majority of wargames. Ergo yes you can argue it on a technicality but you're really just beating your head against a brick wall for the most part. Esp when talking about any situation where the game is being played "seriously" and not just a super casual or kids game.

I ended up buying colored sticky dots after the last game, and now if anyone tries it, their models are getting dotted. I was more trying to see if anyone else here is seeing a massive up tick in not getting what you see in front of you. Of my 4 games this weekend, 3 were SM soup. Which I get, new release, everyone wants to try it out. But have some common understanding.

I don't think they necessarily need to be painted completely differently but there should be some way to differentiate otherwise identical models.

 Nazrak wrote:
Argh, yeah I'd absolutely hate this. Play guys as what they're painted and stop trying to game the system to your advantage.

What if my guys aren't painted in the colours of any particular subfaction?

 Overread wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
WYSIWYG is not a rule. As long as they are using the correct Citadel™ Miniature for the datasheet it doesn't matter what wargear is represented.

It might not be in the current rules; but its been in there for years; is in most other wargames and is a socially generally expected element within the majority of wargames. Ergo yes you can argue it on a technicality but you're really just beating your head against a brick wall for the most part. Esp when talking about any situation where the game is being played "seriously" and not just a super casual or kids game.

The closest thing we had to a rule was in 3rd ed, and it wasn't an actual rule but expected etiquette.

I would say that it would be kind of a jerk move to strongly enforce colors and bits in a pick up game and casual environment. HOWEVER I would also strongly not agree with the other person making no effort to distinguish models when they are multiple chapters (I hate that). I would insist that they leave dice on their bases or have some other way to distinguish what the models are for ease of play. Dictating how people paint is not going to make a lot of friends. And few people are like me and play what its painted as because its House Terryn rules or no house at all even on Castellans

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I ended up buying colored sticky dots after the last game, and now if anyone tries it, their models are getting dotted. I was more trying to see if anyone else here is seeing a massive up tick in not getting what you see in front of you. Of my 4 games this weekend, 3 were SM soup. Which I get, new release, everyone wants to try it out. But have some common understanding.

Am not sure about other places, but if you would glue anything at someone else model, you would probably be kicked out of the store, specially if it was hard to remove.


What I don't get is why people do it. If they take IF and RG in the same list they lose doctrins, and those are like the reason to play space marines. Very strange.

Karol wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I ended up buying colored sticky dots after the last game, and now if anyone tries it, their models are getting dotted. I was more trying to see if anyone else here is seeing a massive up tick in not getting what you see in front of you. Of my 4 games this weekend, 3 were SM soup. Which I get, new release, everyone wants to try it out. But have some common understanding.

Am not sure about other places, but if you would glue anything at someone else model, you would probably be kicked out of the store, specially if it was hard to remove.


What I don't get is why people do it. If they take IF and RG in the same list they lose doctrins, and those are like the reason to play space marines. Very strange.

Because pre-2019 Codex, there was literally zero downside to souping. Even in the new SM codex, the Combat Doctrine extension doesn't outweigh the ability to give your shooty units and choppy units different traits.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
WYSIWYG is not a rule. As long as they are using the correct Citadel™ Miniature for the datasheet it doesn't matter what wargear is represented.

There you go again with your binary approach. It may not be a literal rule in the holy of holies rulebook that you seem to think every word in it is some kind of edict from on high; but it IS a rule insofar right now as a form of gentlemen's agreement. In the same vein as counts-as, rule of cool and several others.

But you knew this already

if they are all painted the same they imo need to be the same chapter. my marines are a custom color with background, a darker blue than ultramarines with a blue-green color transition paint over it and rose gold/ gunmetal accents. I usually run them as iron hands but might try other tactics if i bring them. as they all match though they are always the same chapter. maybe ravenguard successor or ultramarines successor but none of this these guys looking the same are ravenguard while these other ones are ultramarines and the others are iron hands.

If i wanted to do that I would probably paint some red-purple transition paint marines and that would be the other chapter.

Often i find the same people who want to run the same models as 3 chapters will conveniently use whatever chapter tactic benefits the unit at the time like... oh they are mius 1 to hit due to being 12 inches away... then after wounds... ignoreing on 6 for iron hands. After that they get mad when you call them out on the horsegak of claiming the unit is both "oh honest mistake i was confused" "like motherf@(#er how do you think i feel having to track all your s#(*t"

 Grimtuff wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
WYSIWYG is not a rule. As long as they are using the correct Citadel™ Miniature for the datasheet it doesn't matter what wargear is represented.

There you go again with your binary approach. It may not be a literal rule in the holy of holies rulebook that you seem to think every word in it is some kind of edict from on high; but it IS a rule insofar right now as a form of gentlemen's agreement. In the same vein as counts-as, rule of cool and several others.

But you knew this already and just wanted to be a knob.

He's not being binary...

The OP asks for opinion on the enforceability of WYSIWYG, and certain member voiced their opinion that not following WYSIWYG is essentially cheating.

BCB is merely stating the fact that because WYSIWYG is not an actual written rule, and therefore cannot be "broken", and there's no actual way of "enforcing" it other than mutual agreement.

 G00fySmiley wrote:
if they are all painted the same they imo need to be the same chapter. my marines are a custom color with background, a darker blue than ultramarines with a blue-green color transition paint over it and rose gold/ gunmetal accents. I usually run them as iron hands but might try other tactics if i bring them. as they all match though they are always the same chapter. maybe ravenguard successor or ultramarines successor but none of this these guys looking the same are ravenguard while these other ones are ultramarines and the others are iron hands.

If i wanted to do that I would probably paint some red-purple transition paint marines and that would be the other chapter.

Often i find the same people who want to run the same models as 3 chapters will conveniently use whatever chapter tactic benefits the unit at the time like... oh they are mius 1 to hit due to being 12 inches away... then after wounds... ignoreing on 6 for iron hands. After that they get mad when you call them out on the horsegak of claiming the unit is both "oh honest mistake i was confused" "like motherf@(#er how do you think i feel having to track all your s#(*t"

Yeah, I always draw the line at stuff needs to have some kind of easy to identify differentiator. Usually, this is some kind of ring of color on the base. Occasionally I am OK with a very easily differentiable detachment - say, "All the tanks are in one detachment and they're this" - but usually if they're all the same color I'd like them to be all the same tactic.

"I don't like the rules GW gave me for X and I think Y better fits how I think the subfaction should play" I will always be sympathetic towards. My Evil Sunz painted orks are almost always freebootas, simply because I love the mad max "Witness me!" feeling of the freeboota klan kultur.

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Often i find the same people who want to run the same models as 3 chapters will conveniently use whatever chapter tactic benefits the unit at the time like... oh they are mius 1 to hit due to being 12 inches away... then after wounds... ignoreing on 6 for iron hands. After that they get mad when you call them out on the horsegak of claiming the unit is both "oh honest mistake i was confused" "like motherf@(#er how do you think i feel having to track all your s#(*t"

Yeah that didn't happen.

I would prefer my opponents keep it down to three things that are not WYSWYG, and make sure they are broad categories and consistent. All my bikes are WS, all flamers are plasma. Stuff like that. Once I start needing to ask what everything thing is every turn, the fun goes away quickly.

Not that I’ll turn down a game or pack up.

 skchsan wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
WYSIWYG is not a rule. As long as they are using the correct Citadel™ Miniature for the datasheet it doesn't matter what wargear is represented.

There you go again with your binary approach. It may not be a literal rule in the holy of holies rulebook that you seem to think every word in it is some kind of edict from on high; but it IS a rule insofar right now as a form of gentlemen's agreement. In the same vein as counts-as, rule of cool and several others.

But you knew this already and just wanted to be a knob.

He's not being binary...

The OP asks for opinion on the enforceability of WYSIWYG, and certain member voiced their opinion that not following WYSIWYG is essentially cheating.

BCB is merely stating the fact that because WYSIWYG is not an actual written rule, and therefore cannot be "broken", and there's no actual way of "enforcing" it other than mutual agreement.

Bingo. If someone wants to use their Crimson Fists or Salamanders as something more functional, why should I stop them? It's GWs fault their rules suck, and it's the least I can do to help out an opponent

Worst case scenario, I would ask my opponent to write a note on a piece of paper and slip it under the models/units in question so that neither of us can get confused.

We're all capable of using markers/notes to aid us in the game.

I do ask that the benefit of the doubt to fall on me always, because my opponent should be the one that's liable for bringing potential confusion.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Karol wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I ended up buying colored sticky dots after the last game, and now if anyone tries it, their models are getting dotted. I was more trying to see if anyone else here is seeing a massive up tick in not getting what you see in front of you. Of my 4 games this weekend, 3 were SM soup. Which I get, new release, everyone wants to try it out. But have some common understanding.

Am not sure about other places, but if you would glue anything at someone else model, you would probably be kicked out of the store, specially if it was hard to remove.


What I don't get is why people do it. If they take IF and RG in the same list they lose doctrins, and those are like the reason to play space marines. Very strange.

Because pre-2019 Codex, there was literally zero downside to souping. Even in the new SM codex, the Combat Doctrine extension doesn't outweigh the ability to give your shooty units and choppy units different traits.

okey, but this makes sense for an old books army soup then. And it doesn't have to be bad. I don't play AoS, but I know a guy here had really nice free people army, and his units were everything elfes, dwarfs, resculpted stormcasts and even chaos models he used as "pokutnicy"(no idea the name in english), dudes that whip themselfs.

Still, one can ask, in tournaments they have to be easily to idenify, outsideof them it is more free for all, but still asking if your now shoting the 2 man or 7 man auto bolter unit with your hellblasters, should not be killing the game. I do agree that it does give a window to cheat. Or wierd stuff. Like I seen to guys almost come to blows over whose drones specific models were, both of them were tau, and both had black undercoated models and they kind of a meshed in to each other on an objective. Store owner had to interveen.

"I don't like the rules GW gave me for X and I think Y better fits how I think the subfaction should play" I will always be sympathetic towards.

yeah I don't think something like faction loyality and rules really exists in w40k. And I really wouldn't want a WB player have to play with WB rules, just because he likes WB in the lore. Specially when their rules are nothing like the lore, from books.

All rules are only enforced through mutual agreement.

 Polonius wrote:
All rules are only enforced through mutual agreement.

But not all mutual agreements are rules.

Karol wrote:
What I don't get is why people do it. If they take IF and RG in the same list they lose doctrins, and those are like the reason to play space marines. Very strange.

If they're mixing Imperial Fists and Raven Guard, then all the units will have the standard Combat Doctrine rules. Not sure if they lose the RG special bit, though.

 skchsan wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
All rules are only enforced through mutual agreement.

But not all mutual agreements are rules.

But not all rules are RAW.

From what I understand about doctrines, even if you have codex marines, but one is IF while the other is RG, you get no doctrines at all. Same as droping an assasin turn 2, or taking BA marines with your dudes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
All rules are only enforced through mutual agreement.

But not all mutual agreements are rules.

But not all rules are RAW.

If rules isn't RAW, then it aint a rule. Then it is some sort of interpretation social thingy, where it works better for the person who can force the other one to fold. With RAW you fold only to the rule, not the other player and his social skills or status.

 TheFleshIsWeak wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
Argh, yeah I'd absolutely hate this. Play guys as what they're painted and stop trying to game the system to your advantage.

What if my guys aren't painted in the colours of any particular subfaction?

Then play them as whatever subfaction you like, but my preference would be that someone be consistent, rather than mixing and matching to gain the most benefit.

 Dysartes wrote:

Karol wrote:
What I don't get is why people do it. If they take IF and RG in the same list they lose doctrins, and those are like the reason to play space marines. Very strange.

If they're mixing Imperial Fists and Raven Guard, then all the units will have the standard Combat Doctrine rules. Not sure if they lose the RG special bit, though.

Basically SM work on varying levels of purity now.


Pure Single Chapter Space Marines w/ Single Chapter Detachments: Chapter Trait, Combat Doctrines and Combat Doctrine Extension (for UM and WS right now).
Pure Space Marines w/ Single Chapter Detachments: Chapter Trait, Combat Doctrines
Pure Space Marines w/ Mixed Chapter Detachments: Combat Doctrines
Soup w/ Single Chapter Detachments: Chapter Trait.
Soup w/ Mixed Chapter Detachments: Nothing.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Often i find the same people who want to run the same models as 3 chapters will conveniently use whatever chapter tactic benefits the unit at the time like... oh they are mius 1 to hit due to being 12 inches away... then after wounds... ignoreing on 6 for iron hands. After that they get mad when you call them out on the horsegak of claiming the unit is both "oh honest mistake i was confused" "like motherf@(#er how do you think i feel having to track all your s#(*t"

Yeah that didn't happen.

can confirm had a player try and pull the both strats and get upset at me for pointing it out like "its an honest mistake" after pulling that gak all game (though usually it was not as brash as using the strats in the same phase on the same unit)

its like people who get annoyed when you ask them what unit is in which transport and then call them out later for deciding a wave serpant with dire avengers declared on drop is the wave serpant now that has fire dragons because its closer to one of my battle wagons. and the other one is near an objective with grots so the dire avengers can take it easy.