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.

While I could focus on all the bad things that wysiwyg creates I will instead talk about how pointless it is. It really isn't hard to remember what each unit is armed with even if the model isn't completely accurate, as most people don't model every single piece of weargear on their model, like grenades and sometimes even swords are often left behind, and relics and such are usually not modelled, and even if you forget you can just ask your opponent. So really the only question remaining is that why do so many people defend this rule? Certainly from GW's perspective selling people extra models so that their armies comply with this rule makes sense, but why do so many non GW affiliated people defend this rule?

EDIT: I should add that if there is a risk of a mix up, like for example your sergeant has an item which is very positioning dependent, then yes being clear is important, but saying that the helmetles guy is the sarge should be enough.

First lets be clear that this isn't a GW only thing - in fact WYSIWYG is pretty standard in most wargames. The core difference is that with GW games many models have alternative weapon options; whilst in many other model lines the unit has one single weapon option and nothing else.

You see the very same rule in Warmachine, warjacks that have varied builds are what they are on the table as represented on the model. Many infantry have no weapon options so they are simple built as-is.



It makes the record keeping for the game a LOT easier. You don't have to write down and mentally remember which of two otherwise identical marine units is the one with the rocket launcher and which is the one with the close combat weapons only. You can tell at a glance.


You are right that upgrades are often not included, both from the fact that they are often too small to see; can easily be mistaken for other things and because its just not economical unless you build 1 army composition and never change. However ugprades are typically tweaking things that are central to the units primary weapons.


Eg a Tyranid Warrior that takes all close combat weapons can be seen to be a close combat unit on the tabletop. An opponent can easily infer that the unit might have upgrades that benefit those close combat weapons without even asking for confirmation. They can expect that the unit will not have ranged weapon upgrades and if it does it won't have any net gain anyway as its not nothing ranged to use them with.


It means that the Tyranid player knows exactly which warriors have which weapons; there's far less confusion for both players.
Heck a Tyranid player might run some termagaunts near some devilgaunts (devourer armed) if they are all modelled with the same weapon then as the units move near each other the player has a much reduced chance to tell which is from which squad based on weapons.



In the end its something players want because it helps the game along. Yes it means you want to use magnets or buy more models to represent more; however at the core of the game buying, building, painting and fielding models IS part of what players WANT in the game. It's part of the overall experience and why we play a model game over using simple card tokens or a computer game.

GW doesn't enforce wysiwyg outside of their own events,its not part of the rules AFAIK.

Its mostly down to the people you play with. Talk to them if you're having issues.

Generally speaking my experience is that NOBODY ever gave a gak about random pistols or grenades missing, the only thing that ever came up was about the primary weapons of models - eg a boltgun on the model while the list says its got a plasma gun, for example. Not to speak of proxying entire models, of course.

I wouldn't refuse a game just because of those things, but it has to be clear what's what. I want to know which guy has the Lascannon in a tactical squad - it's fine if he's actually carrying eg a flamer instead.

But it's just nicer to play with fully painted and correctly equipped armies.

WYSIWYG is a good rule as others have stated, in casual games I don’t really care as long as at a glance I know what is what weapon and model. In a tournament I will expect a much stricter adherence to what the model is modeled with being what they are equipped with.

In casual games I have been using some proxies for invictor warsuits as they are sold out here in the US with no sign of a restock soon, the only option to get them is to spend $150+ to get one on eBay from Japan right now or that same amount for a “pro-painted” one on eBay in a color scheme that doesn’t match mine.

WYSIWYG enhances the visually immersive gaming experience. If you don't care about that, you can play with bottlecaps and coke cans instead of models.

I will always go as far as I can to provide WYSIWYG, for the benefit of myself, my opponent.
If I mixed up my models, and their loadout, I am cheating. I am not going to do that if I can help it.

GW sells me only the number of models on the table, as I magnetise.
It takes more time to prepare my models, but I am not restricted in how they are used on the table. A model with a sword has a sword, not a mace, or pistol, etc.

WYSIWYG is for my benefit as a player, as much as my opponent's.

I mention GW because this is the 40k board. While people claim that non wysiwyg armies are confusing this is not true, as people are perfectly fine differentiating identical commander models which have different wargear. Lets make a thought experiment, you have two squads of space marines both of which are modelled with a missile launcher, yet one of them is a lascannon wargear wise. Also lets assume that you have two captains, both with a thunder hammer, but that the other one has a relic hammer. In both of these cases you have identical models with different wargear, so what is the difference? Evidently in both cases there is no problem if you play against someone reasonable who you can ask what wargear their units have.

As to immersion, often times non wysiwyg models can be more immersive, see: "Rule of cool".

I'm of two minds on this issue.

On the one hand I have a lot of weapons like Bolt Rifles vs Stalker Bolt Rifles that are indistinguishable at table-top distance and others like the Cyclone Launcher or LasTalon that have wildly different representations on different models.

On the other hand having people deviate from wysiwyg is really confusing if they're not consistent about it. That doesn't even have to be in "this Tac squad with a Heavy Bolter actually has a LasCannon, that Tac squad with a Heavy Bolter actually has a Grav Cannon" territory. The last game I played my opponent had a squad of DE jetbikes with three of them carrying GravTalons and I had the Master Crafted upgrade on an Aggressor Sergeant, and neither of us had them clearly marked. It mattered in game when his bikes charged several units (the Grav Talon procs for every unit the carrying model touches) and I had the opportunity to get my Aggressors out of melee by removing a particular model as a casualty but had no idea if that model was the sergeant or not. Edit: You can't claim wysiwyg is meaningless if it can have an in-game effect.

No, not giving units their full range of options in a box forces more purchases. That is cynical on GW’s part.

WYSIWYG itself is a sensible convention most people follow for a variety of reasons, chiefly avoiding confusion. It’s also not a rule, currently.

The OP’s stance is just so wide of the mark.

As usual, WYSIWYG is used as a proxy for the basic "don't be an Ahole" social contract that some folks violate, and other folks accuse others of violating as a means of discrediting their opinions.

I have been witness to plenty of super obnoxious WYSIWYG situations, where a person was told to remember (for example) that all meltas on the table were flamers, all heavy bolters on the table were autocannons, all Leman Russ Demolishers on the table were Punishers (with invisible triple heavy bolters, except for the ones that were battlecannons) and all Valkyries on the table were Vendettas. This was supremely confusing for the opponent involved, and also VERY PROBABLY included a high degree of list tailoring and points cheating as well as the player didn't have a printout of his list available and a lot of the weapons shifted around to anti-infantry weaponry when he saw his opponent had an infantry based ork list.

I've also been witness to people resorting to complaining about very slight WYSIWYG deviations when angry about a loss as a way to absolve themselves of the feeling that they lost because their opponent was better. The exact situation sticking out in my mind was an opponent getting angry because the player was very careful to take advantage of his frag and krak grenades, and his opponent after the game grumbled that unless a squad had a model throwing a grenade in it, you really shouldn't be using those grenades every time you shoot. The player also used pile-in and Consolidate moves to prevent fall back, used pistols in melee, contested a few Line of Sight and Cover claims, and used several stratagems and psychic buffs at once on one unit, all of which was decried as "Rules Lawyery Powergaming".

Alkaline_Hound wrote:
I mention GW because this is the 40k board. While people claim that non wysiwyg armies are confusing this is not true, as people are perfectly fine differentiating identical commander models which have different wargear. Lets make a thought experiment, you have two squads of space marines both of which are modelled with a missile launcher, yet one of them is a lascannon wargear wise. Also lets assume that you have two captains, both with a thunder hammer, but that the other one has a relic hammer. In both of these cases you have identical models with different wargear, so what is the difference? Evidently in both cases there is no problem if you play against someone reasonable who you can ask what wargear their units have.
As to immersion, often times non wysiwyg models can be more immersive, see: "Rule of cool".

Yeah, and you're just showing cases that support your stance.
If there's a squad of 5 Bolter marines, I'd like to know which one is the sarge and which one has the melta.if there are two such squads and one has a melta and the other has a Lascannon, we're gonna have an issue there.

Its not about one or two HQs looking the same, it's easy to track one model.

Alkaline_Hound wrote:
I mention GW because this is the 40k board. While people claim that non wysiwyg armies are confusing this is not true, as people are perfectly fine differentiating identical commander models which have different wargear. Lets make a thought experiment, you have two squads of space marines both of which are modelled with a missile launcher, yet one of them is a lascannon wargear wise. Also lets assume that you have two captains, both with a thunder hammer, but that the other one has a relic hammer. In both of these cases you have identical models with different wargear, so what is the difference? Evidently in both cases there is no problem if you play against someone reasonable who you can ask what wargear their units have.

It becomes an issue when you do it for every unit on the table or a majority of them. Then double it for both you and your opponent. Now you're in a much more confusing situation because there's a lot more for both players to remember and write down. It makes the game less fluid if you've got to pause every few moments and ask which is which and increases the chances of both players making mistakes and mixing up which unit is which.

The unit and the weapon creates a two point reference which makes it much easier to identify the model type and its primary weapons. In addition when checking the army list it creates at least two points of fixed reference. A player might opt for a third such as coloured base rims; insignia etc... which increases the accuracy a lot more.

Even if you've got an army list if you've three or four identical units with different armaments that aren't shown anywhere on the model you are making things harder for all involved.




If WYSIWYG with regard to model type and primary weapons were not such a useful convention it would not be something most players expect t obe the norm when playing against unknown/random/event people. Of course conversions and such come into play, but even there most aim to have a lasgun look like a lasgun or at least have a unified look within their army.

Clearly the problem that the scotsman experienced was that the guy from the story didn't have a list ready and that he likely tailored, not that he proxyed. I find it hard to believe that those proxyes would be difficult to remember, and you can always ask your opponent if you are in doubt of what each unit is armed with. Also not being a dick is important yes, but what I seek to argue in this thread is that proxying is okay if neither player is an donkey-cave, and if either player is a gak, then even a game without proxies is going to be unpleasant, as you will run into the same problems anyways, like which captain has a relic hammer.

Alkaline_Hound wrote:
Clearly the problem was that he didn't have a list ready and that he likely tailored, not that he proxyed. I find it hard to believe that those proxyes would be difficult to remember, and you can always ask your opponent if you are in doubt of what each unit is armed with. Also not being a dick is important yes, but what I seek to argue in this thread is that proxying is okay if neither player is an donkey-cave, and if either player is a gak, then even a game without proxies is going to be unpleasant, as you will run into the same problems anyways, like which captain has a relic hammer.

Not being a dick is what is forgotten in so, so many games.

Alkaline_Hound wrote:
Clearly the problem was that he didn't have a list ready and that he likely tailored, not that he proxyed. I find it hard to believe that those proxyes would be difficult to remember, and you can always ask your opponent if you are in doubt of what each unit is armed with. Also not being a dick is important yes, but what I seek to argue in this thread is that proxying is okay if neither player is an donkey-cave, and if either player is a gak, then even a game without proxies is going to be unpleasant, as you will run into the same problems anyways, like which captain has a relic hammer.

Absolutely. But its faster and easier to have everything be cleary identifieable, or at least as much as possible.

As I said - I don't see it as a hard rule you have to follow, but it's a better game if you do

 Crimson wrote:
WYSIWYG enhances the visually immersive gaming experience. If you don't care about that, you can play with bottlecaps and coke cans instead of models.

I think that's a step too far.

I know off the top of my head I have six Sgts, 2 with combi plasmas, 2 with combi gravs, and 2 with combi meltas. None of them are wielding a chainsword but it's not outside the realm of reality to say "Hey all my Sgts have chainswords"

Bottle caps and cans though? That's different because I'd then be taking into question about how much this person actually cares about 40k.

 Crimson wrote:
WYSIWYG enhances the visually immersive gaming experience. If you don't care about that, you can play with bottlecaps and coke cans instead of models.

Personally I don't usually care what is used. As long as I can easily distinguish what is what. In big tournaments I'm a bit more strict though.

RE: Alkaline

What you're arguing is an opinion, which is borderline pointless. You're not going to magically change someone else' mind, nor are they likely to change yours. So you're not really arguing, but just shouting your opinion into the void, looking for validation from other people with similar opinions.

The only thing I will agree with you on (as I run all-painted, all-WYSIWYG and will not do otherwise) is that GW is very clever about not putting too much into a kit, and there are numerous cases throughout their range that are definitely designed with it in mind. However, bits sellers and aftermarket companies exist, so it's rarely an issue for me.

 fraser1191 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
WYSIWYG enhances the visually immersive gaming experience. If you don't care about that, you can play with bottlecaps and coke cans instead of models.

I think that's a step too far.

I know off the top of my head I have six Sgts, 2 with combi plasmas, 2 with combi gravs, and 2 with combi meltas. None of them are wielding a chainsword but it's not outside the realm of reality to say "Hey all my Sgts have chainswords"

Bottle caps and cans though? That's different because I'd then be taking into question about how much this person actually cares about 40k.

That's fine with most people, but if you start going "one of them has a power fist, one of them has a power axe, this one has a power mace and that one a power sword, and this guy has a thunder hammer. Oh, and the sixth guy comes with a chainsword. "... Well.

Alkaline_Hound wrote:
I mention GW because this is the 40k board. While people claim that non wysiwyg armies are confusing this is not true, as people are perfectly fine differentiating identical commander models which have different wargear. Lets make a thought experiment, you have two squads of space marines both of which are modelled with a missile launcher, yet one of them is a lascannon wargear wise. Also lets assume that you have two captains, both with a thunder hammer, but that the other one has a relic hammer. In both of these cases you have identical models with different wargear, so what is the difference? Evidently in both cases there is no problem if you play against someone reasonable who you can ask what wargear their units have.

As to immersion, often times non wysiwyg models can be more immersive, see: "Rule of cool".

What's the difference? Well, when looking at the battlefield, it's a whole lot easier to remember which of the identical squads has the missile launcher and which has the lascannon if the one that has the lascannon is modelled with a fricking lascannon. That's the difference. It's not complicated. There's enough to keep track of in 40K as it is without having to go down this route.

Let me give you a thought experiment in return. What if, instead of talking about a single special weapon, you're talking about a squad of 10 Death Company? Let's say you have 10 identically modelled guys with bolt pistols and chainswords - but *actually* your list has one guy with a plasma pistol, two guys with thunder hammers, three guys with power axes, etc... Now let's say you declare a charge against multiple units. How do you keep track of which guy with what equipment has ended up in combat with what enemy unit?

Edit - I do however absolutely agree that GW should sell boxes with enough weapons etc to equip a squad however you want. Having to buy multiple boxes, or order spare bitz online, to get a single squad with the loadout you want is a massive pain.

 Overread wrote:

Alkaline_Hound wrote:


If WYSIWYG with regard to model type and primary weapons were not such a useful convention it would not be something most players expect t obe the norm when playing against unknown/random/event people. Of course conversions and such come into play, but even there most aim to have a lasgun look like a lasgun or at least have a unified look within their army.

I have see some guard conversions to make them look more like modern infantry, they replaced las guns with what looked like an m16 or similar rifle and did it for all of their infantry, this worked because Just looking at the table I knew that the infantry guys with m16 were guardsmen with lasguns, I didn’t have to stop over and over again to,ask what models they were or what they were armed with.

If I had to remember the guy with the red had is the Sargent, the guy with the blue hat is the heavy weapon guy with a las cannon, the guy with the orange hat is a mortar, the guy with the purple hat is the special weapons guy, and the guys with the brown hats are normal guys it would be a colossal PiTA.

Alkaline_Hound wrote:
While I could focus on all the bad things that wysiwyg creates I will instead talk about how pointless it is. It really isn't hard to remember what each unit is armed with even if the model isn't completely accurate, as most people don't model every single piece of weargear on their model, like grenades and sometimes even swords are often left behind, and relics and such are usually not modelled, and even if you forget you can just ask your opponent. So really the only question remaining is that why do so many people defend this rule? Certainly from GW's perspective selling people extra models so that their armies comply with this rule makes sense, but why do so many non GW affiliated people defend this rule?

The problem isn't with the benign modeling. Warhammer has a lot to keep track of and needing to track what each unit is armed with mentally is far too taxing.

But imagine this scenario. I have a squad that is modeled with melta. I tell you they're plasma and I payed plasma points. This game I use them as plasma, because you're marines. Next game I face an opponent who has a lot of tanks. "Oh yea, those are melta. I just forgot to update my list. Let me remove a model to make the points even."

Are you going to check my list for accuracy? Do you have time? Are you going to bring a TO over? Do you think the TO would ban me for a "minor transgression"?

Opinions are based on facts, and facts can be argued, so opinions can be argued.

I added a bit into the op.

My motivation for this thread actually comes from seeing people screaming wysiwyg telling people not to do cool conversions like giving a leman russ a neutron blaster and running it as an vanquisher. I don't see however why the same courtesy of ignoring wysiwyg wouldn't apply to less rule of cool proxies, which is why I will defend them too.

Alkaline_Hound wrote:
Opinions are based on facts, and facts can be argued, so opinions can be argued.

I added a bit into the op.

My motivation for this thread actually comes from seeing people screaming wysiwyg telling people not to do cool conversions like giving a leman russ a neutron blaster and running it as an vanquisher. I don't see however why the same courtesy of ignoring wysiwyg wouldn't apply to less rule of cool proxies, which is why I will defend them too.

As long as it is consistent then that should really not be a problem And the part doesn’t already represent another legal option most people wouldn’t object but a TO might always say no as they have that authority. In a casual or competitive game as long as I knew what it represented I would be fine with your conversion.

Alkaline_Hound wrote:
Opinions are based on facts, and facts can be argued, so opinions can be argued.

I added a bit into the op.

My motivation for this thread actually comes from seeing people screaming wysiwyg telling people not to do cool conversions like giving a leman russ a neutron blaster and running it as an vanquisher. I don't see however why the same courtesy of ignoring wysiwyg wouldn't apply to less rule of cool proxies, which is why I will defend them too.

Opinions can be based on anything. even bad facts and lies.

also a neutron vanquisher tank sounds super cool and that sounds more like a your local group problem then an anywhere else problem.

@ OP:

Wysiwyg exists to sell models?!

Nope, it exists to further the high art of the hobby which is modeling and painting your minis. Otherwise little Timmy & his bozos would play with bottle caps.

I prefer WYSIWYG for immersion purporses, but super happy for friends to proxy to try out things before buying.

WYSIWYG is about more than the game, its about the whole hobby. Building the models, painting them and playing the game are all aspects of the hobby, and WYSIWYG is an encouragement and a reason to pay attention to the modelling aspect of the hobby, in addition to the reasons given above: clarity, fairness, respect for the game and your opponent etc etc.

WYSIWYG doesn't work for every army. Take SW, for example. Grey Hunters have THREE weapons if they take Chainswords. How are you going to model that using the box alone?

 RaptorusRex wrote:
WYSIWYG doesn't work for every army. Take SW, for example. Grey Hunters have THREE weapons if they take Chainswords. How are you going to model that using the box alone?

By saying that the bolt pistol is in one of their tactical fanny packs.