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.

 Overread wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:
My local GW seems pretty solid it seems then.
Painting requirements are just 3 colours.

Model requirements are “majority GW parts” only.
See tons of head swaps etc and no one blinks an eye at it.
Also seen models used for unreleased kits as a stand in and they don’t mine either (that was a while ago though)

Your GW has painting requirements?

Even clubs can have painting requirements. It's basically there to encourage people to actually paint their models rather than just having armies of grey on the table all the time. Typically a store won't punish newbies or those new to the area (who might be newly returned or joined to the hobby); but they will encourage and enforce it. The idea is to get people putting paint on the models so that the game looks better for both players and also advertises a more interesting game to passers by. For a shop this is important; for clubs it also helps recruit and retain new players to their local scene.


Painted models, even badly painted, typically look way better than just legions of grey (or undercoat white/black) models.

You clearly never seen a badly painted model IRL. Maybe mediocre, but not bad. If you saw an actually bad painted model you wouldn't enforce it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:
My local GW seems pretty solid it seems then.
Painting requirements are just 3 colours.

Model requirements are “majority GW parts” only.
See tons of head swaps etc and no one blinks an eye at it.
Also seen models used for unreleased kits as a stand in and they don’t mine either (that was a while ago though)

Your GW has painting requirements?

Even clubs can have painting requirements. It's basically there to encourage people to actually paint their models rather than just having armies of grey on the table all the time. Typically a store won't punish newbies or those new to the area (who might be newly returned or joined to the hobby); but they will encourage and enforce it. The idea is to get people putting paint on the models so that the game looks better for both players and also advertises a more interesting game to passers by. For a shop this is important; for clubs it also helps recruit and retain new players to their local scene.


Painted models, even badly painted, typically look way better than just legions of grey (or undercoat white/black) models.

You clearly never seen a badly painted model IRL. Maybe mediocre, but not bad. If you saw an actually bad painted model you wouldn't enforce it.

The internet example of truly badly painted models is not something I've ever personally seen IRL, just as with the fabled CAAC and WAAC tournament-only player. Generally speaking, even badly painted models are preferable to grey miniatures because encouraging an environment where models are painted encourages people to improve their painting in my experience. Nowadays it seems everyone's first models are miles better than mine were because the internet is a fantastic resource for helping newbies learn.

I would honestly be interested in a Dakka poll - for whoever is good with this crap:

What percentage of games that you play in 40k/AoS happen inside a licensed GW store? Not a store that carries GW products, but a literal GW store?

I'm guessing the majority of casual players DON'T play in a GW store, and the majority of competetives do. That being the case, is there actually a problem? I don't ever see people being "stifled" with their creativity in stores, unless it's flagrant assshatery.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I would honestly be interested in a Dakka poll - for whoever is good with this crap:

What percentage of games that you play in 40k/AoS happen inside a licensed GW store? Not a store that carries GW products, but a literal GW store?

I'm guessing the majority of casual players DON'T play in a GW store, and the majority of competetives do. That being the case, is there actually a problem? I don't ever see people being "stifled" with their creativity in stores, unless it's flagrant assshatery.

Can we drop the casual and competitive titles? Not all players are one or the other.
While I enter a fair few tournaments, I play a ton of casual matches.
That’s the perks of being able to tone down lists.
As for playing inside an actual GW, I’d say maybe 20% or so of my games are there depending on what they are hosting.
I play slightly less there now due to them holding an AI night and my work hours shifting, but I still get a mix of competitive and casual games there depending on what’s on the roster.

Way too many people seem to think you can only be one or the other.
To me, it’s all about the mood I’m in at the time.
If it’s been a long week I’m happy to have a few drinks with friends and some games.
If theres a tournament on and I’ve had a decent week I’ll happily enter that too.




Edit:

Sorry JNAP, didn’t see your post.
As a rule, the painting requirements generally stand only for tournaments or campaigns.
A newer player or someone adding to an army is happily allowed to play though with half painted/bare models.
It is however encouraged to try and paint models and the staff are always happy to help.

To give an example, a younger player wasn’t allowed to spray models at home, so the manager asked him to bring them in and he undercoated them in the store for him. (Without the lad having to buy the paint either)

As I said though, I’m pretty lucky as the guys (and gal) at my local GW are actually pretty damn decent.

I feel that WYSIWYG is meant for purists. There really is no reason to be that strict. The casual onlooker likely has no idea how a plasma gun vs a flamer vs a boltgun is supposed to look. So do we really need to buy 4 boxes of Havocs just to get one squad of chain reaper cannon Havocs ?

If the kit comes with all the stuff available, maybe I might be ok. But these days, kits don't come with all the possible weapon options. So, if that's the case, is it really fair to require us to buy multiple boxes just for the weapon?

And I am the type of person who doesn't like to magnetize. I don't want a box with a million magetized bits in it. I just assemble a model as it is, and I glue everything fast so that it doesn't easily fall apart. I even glue the doors of my Rhinos shut. Makes it less likely I might drop a part during transportion and then end up losing a weapon or worse, the arm connected to the weapon.

Also, these days, the kits don't make it so easy to swop out weapons even if you want to magnetize them. Like the Havocs squad. I just gave up and choose the most common weapons I would likely use, and then I would just agree with my opponent beforehand what they were for.

I mean, as an opponent, if you require me to buy like 6 to 12 boxes of havocs just because you insist on WYSIWYG. then I would rather not play you, because I am so not going to buy that many boxes of havocs lol.

Eldenfirefly wrote:
I feel that WYSIWYG is meant for purists. There really is no reason to be that strict. The casual onlooker likely has no idea how a plasma gun vs a flamer vs a boltgun is supposed to look. So do we really need to buy 4 boxes of Havocs just to get one squad of chain reaper cannon Havocs ?

If the kit comes with all the stuff available, maybe I might be ok. But these days, kits don't come with all the possible weapon options. So, if that's the case, is it really fair to require us to buy multiple boxes just for the weapon?

And I am the type of person who doesn't like to magnetize. I don't want a box with a million magetized bits in it. I just assemble a model as it is, and I glue everything fast so that it doesn't easily fall apart. I even glue the doors of my Rhinos shut. Makes it less likely I might drop a part during transportion and then end up losing a weapon or worse, the arm connected to the weapon.

Also, these days, the kits don't make it so easy to swop out weapons even if you want to magnetize them. Like the Havocs squad. I just gave up and choose the most common weapons I would likely use, and then I would just agree with my opponent beforehand what they were for.

I mean, as an opponent, if you require me to buy like 6 to 12 boxes of havocs just because you insist on WYSIWYG. then I would rather not play you, because I am so not going to buy that many boxes of havocs lol.

The only people who couldn’t tell the difference between those weapons is someone just getting into the hobby.
It’s hardly a “purist” to have a conformed unit either.
But to be fair, you will only see weapon min/maxing in tournaments, so if you are an every day casual player you don’t need to max out on the best options.

If the kits came with all the options it would push prices to an insane level.
So either the kits double in price or they remove a ton of options, I don’t like either of those ideas.
Take the harlequin troupe as an example.
You would need to add double the options alone of several weapons to make this possible.
No one is ever going to use every one of those options so like a dual kit, you pay a tax on additional parts.

For the most part I won’t magnetise either.
I do so for flying stands mainly to prevent breaks and occasionally on bigger models so I’m not paying the above tax for a single option.


If you are playing a min/maxed unit then you are likely in a competitive environment.
In which case, uniformed and coherent units are a big thing as it avoids confusion and speeds up games which are generally limited on time too.
When you are against the clock and trying to track several units that aren’t what they look like then it will slow it down.
In that environment, people will know what weapons are on that unit by looking at them.
They shouldn’t have to check constantly if units are as they appear.

If you want a unit with all the same weapons just sell off what you don’t need and take to eBay or bits sites like others do.

In my opinion, I think it's just as easy to just play with what you've got modelled, even if it's not as powerful, as it is to tell them that actually, they've all got XYZ.

I don't understand why people can't just play with different weapons that might not be the top choices in a casual game.
In a tournament, sure, you wouldn't want to do that, but similarly, in a tournament, most seem to strongly advocate for WYSIWYG.

What would be the most fair is, if you're playing against someone with "proxied" (not really a proxy, but I'm sure you get what I mean) weapons is play two games - one where they get to equip whatever they want, WYSIWYG be damned, and another where you ask them to stick to what their guys are actually carrying.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
In my opinion, I think it's just as easy to just play with what you've got modelled, even if it's not as powerful, as it is to tell them that actually, they've all got XYZ.

I don't understand why people can't just play with different weapons that might not be the top choices in a casual game.

Yes, exactly!

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
In my opinion, I think it's just as easy to just play with what you've got modelled, even if it's not as powerful, as it is to tell them that actually, they've all got XYZ.

I don't understand why people can't just play with different weapons that might not be the top choices in a casual game.
In a tournament, sure, you wouldn't want to do that, but similarly, in a tournament, most seem to strongly advocate for WYSIWYG.

What would be the most fair is, if you're playing against someone with "proxied" (not really a proxy, but I'm sure you get what I mean) weapons is play two games - one where they get to equip whatever they want, WYSIWYG be damned, and another where you ask them to stick to what their guys are actually carrying.

Because some of the options are fundamentally different from each other, and some people enjoy the fun of trying different configurations (with multiple data points) or are playing a specific theme to their army, etc.

This problem of not being able to tell what something is equipped with is a massive Nothing-Burger. If the play group is sufficiently friendly, you can just take your opponent’s word for it, and if it’s a tournament setting, everything is clearly spelled out in the Registered Army List and vía Squad markings.

So if all cases are covered, it really is just a personal preference. One that GW is happy to (and should! Their profitability helps our hobby!) exploit.

The point is wysiwyg makes no sense if not all people know all models of weapons etc.
Had the same discussion with a friend, he is a how important is wysiwyg guy.
I showed him 8 bitz of ork ranged weapons, he knew 2 of them.
He failed what's kustom shoota, big shoota, shoota, and so on.
So wysiwyg don't works of people don't know every single model. And sorry who knows that all?
There are old weapon models and so on

And there are models that have so many option like ork nobz
You need 460 arms to show every option in a 10 man squat that's nonsense

T1nk4bell wrote:
The point is wysiwyg makes no sense if not all people know all models of weapons etc.
Had the same discussion with a friend, he is a how important is wysiwyg guy.
I showed him 8 bitz of ork ranged weapons, he knew 2 of them.
He failed what's kustom shoota, big shoota, shoota, and so on.
So wysiwyg don't works of people don't know every single model. And sorry who knows that all?
There are old weapon models and so on

And there are models that have so many option like ork nobz
You need 460 arms to show every option in a 10 man squat that's nonsense

It's not there just for your opponent its also there for you as well to remind the player which unit is armed with what. Because its ever so easy to forget which unit has what, esp if you vary your army a lot; or perhaps you always run the same army and then change it one week. All aspects of the game visual side are for BOTH players to work with and to aid them both. Furthermore its much easier for an opponent to learn your army (long and short term) if the visuals remain the same (or at least similar with the same design ethos). Sure your friend might only know 2 ork weapons now, but given time they can learn the other 6 because they remain the same things every single time. A consistent experience and visual identity. If its always changing they've got no hope.

T1nk4bell wrote:
The point is wysiwyg makes no sense if not all people know all models of weapons etc.
Had the same discussion with a friend, he is a how important is wysiwyg guy.
I showed him 8 bitz of ork ranged weapons, he knew 2 of them.
He failed what's kustom shoota, big shoota, shoota, and so on.
So wysiwyg don't works of people don't know every single model. And sorry who knows that all?
There are old weapon models and so on

And there are models that have so many option like ork nobz
You need 460 arms to show every option in a 10 man squat that's nonsense

Equally, saying we should throw out any attempt to represent things and hope you can remember/trust your opponent to know/remember is not a good take. WYSIWYG has been convention for decades or wargaming for a reason.

Well you have no other chance of you don't know all Modells he still could say whatever he want and you diddent notice

T1nk4bell wrote:

And there are models that have so many option like ork nobz
You need 460 arms to show every option in a 10 man squat that's nonsense

I agree it is nonsense to arm ever Nob differently. Especially if the Ork player is not playing wysiwyg. If you say the Ork player wont also get confused about which nob has what then I think you give that player too much credit.
The exception would be this one odd model out is just like the rest or this one's armed like the other two so I will keep all three of them together and that's the first one I will remove when one of them is destroyed.


I am pro wysiwyg, all of my armies are built that way. A proxy/count as from time to time is fine, maybe a player what's to roll out something they had in mind before they commit to building it as a kit but playing against a pile of count as in every game is not very fun. I bought built and painted the army I wan and if another player can't be bothered to do the same then it is unlikely we will play to many games against each other especially if they are just using it as an excuse to change to the "new hotness every week." It's just not entertaining enough to be worth my time and energy. It's no loss to me.

Well you have no other chance of you don't know all Modells he still could say whatever he want and you diddent notice

No. It's almost like you don't understand the social contract going on between players. These game works on trust as much as it does on rules...suck as they may.
Part of what wysiwyg is important is that as a kind of standard it helps the social contract and a fair game, even if I don't at first know one of the other players models from another with wysiwyg they will essentially be the same units in the next game and after that.

What is always the question is the part of me that likes the spectacle of the game is constantly being kicked by the part of me that is more competitive.
The entire motivation to build/paint faster IS to get that optimal unit out.
You see, the competitive guy wants to win or lose by his decided best strategies and tactics, to "settle" for a lesser unit or load-out will always raise the question if I do lose, was it "legitimate" or because I settled.
You would also never say these things in front of your opponent!

Looks ARE important or I would play board games instead.
I REALLY do not like proxies but on the other hand, there has been some awesome "counts-as" stuff out there I have zero issue with.

I am learning how badly many of us deal with "suppression" so WYSIWYG can be very important.
What pops into your mind when you see these? Now say the colour of the word real fast correctly: RED YELLOW BLUE

What is worse is that the game requires a fair bit of attention and all these "fussy" details get pretty hard as they add up like "those are melta, not plasma...".
This is why across all armies I have, I keep painting the weapon types almost the same: it is as much for me as my opponent.

T1nk4bell wrote:
Well you have no other chance of you don't know all Modells he still could say whatever he want and you diddent notice

Well you could - most Battletomes/codex show photos in them of most of the army - and ALL the models are on the GW Website for the modern ones whilst there are plenty of references for old models around the net. So you can very easily open a book and have a look or open the GW website and have a look if you thought your opponent was cheating like that.

Plus this assumes a closed environment where your opponent is the only person playing an army; its very possible that most larger groups will have mutltiple people playing the same army so you can very easily see when one person is making stuff up about models that everyone else plays and says are a totally different model.

This is of course just my take, and feel free to disagree all you want, but I personally find it truly, truly perplexing that some players put so little stock into the miniature side of the hobby that the models matter less than the playable options. I mean, most if not all arguments against wysiwyg makes pretty much as much sense in proxying whole models than in proxying miniature armaments. If it is unimportant for the flamer to represent a flamer, why is it then less unimportant for the terminator to represent a terminator?

And yes, proxy the hell out of everything to your hearts content. Truly, please do, but don't try to claim it has equal value to models modeled to represent what they are supposed to represent or that tournaments and clubs should automatically just be swell about it (this is the loophole "counts as"-conversions gets through unto the good side of things btw ;-) ).

Also, yes, it should be easier to get access to weapons to arm out your squad exactly how you want, but I don't really get the idea that a purchase of a miniature equals access to the total range of possibilities within a unit entry in a codex or army book. It has never been so before, so where does this expectation come from? You buy the miniature with the armament it has. If you want another armament it is up to you to change it. That is not some evil corporative strategy (although they might like it), it is how miniature wargaming has always been?.

And lastly, price. Yes. It sucks that this is an expensive hobby. It truly does. And in friendlies and to some extent in tournaments this should most definitely be taken into accounts when passing judgement from situation to situation., But again. The argument against WYSIWYG makes as little sense with the flamer as it does with the Warlord Titan.

Now, gentlefolk, happy New Years.

 Overread wrote:

T1nk4bell wrote:
Well you have no other chance of you don't know all Modells he still could say whatever he want and you diddent notice

Well you could - most Battletomes/codex show photos in them of most of the army - and ALL the models are on the GW Website for the modern ones whilst there are plenty of references for old models around the net. So you can very easily open a book and have a look or open the GW website and have a look if you thought your opponent was cheating like that.

Plus this assumes a closed environment where your opponent is the only person playing an army; its very possible that most larger groups will have mutltiple people playing the same army so you can very easily see when one person is making stuff up about models that everyone else plays and says are a totally different model.

Ye and if you play and someone say these unit has weapon xy you will se Ever thing with a picture before playing?
Think everyone is using some kind of army list, and there is no issue to give the list to you're opponent and he can see what unit have Wich weapon and so on. Much more eysier then try to show pictures and so on

Don't get me wrong I like wysiwyg but really 460 arms needed for one unit? Hell no.....
Choppa + choppa
Choppa + klaw
Choppa + big choppa
Choppa + stabba
Choppa + saw
Combi rock
Combi flame
Choppa slugga.
And so on... And we are talking about one model.
For a whole squat where you can all equip different we are talking about 250 dollar for just have 10 man squat wysiwyg options.

And the next things, options go different with new codex and so on. Nobz with kustom shoota yay, but now no....
Just one thing to show how dumb it can be to try to have everything wysiwyg.

 Talizvar wrote:
What is always the question is the part of me that likes the spectacle of the game is constantly being kicked by the part of me that is more competitive.
The entire motivation to build/paint faster IS to get that optimal unit out.
You see, the competitive guy wants to win or lose by his decided best strategies and tactics, to "settle" for a lesser unit or load-out will always raise the question if I do lose, was it "legitimate" or because I settled.
You would also never say these things in front of your opponent!

My approach is to do my best with the stuff that I have. Just like in real life, sometimes the conditions are not optimal. This is the gear that is available; perhaps you would like to have plamaguns, but Munitorum only delivered bunch of grenade launchers and one meltagun, so those have to do.

T1nk4bell wrote:

 Overread wrote:

T1nk4bell wrote:
Well you have no other chance of you don't know all Modells he still could say whatever he want and you diddent notice

Well you could - most Battletomes/codex show photos in them of most of the army - and ALL the models are on the GW Website for the modern ones whilst there are plenty of references for old models around the net. So you can very easily open a book and have a look or open the GW website and have a look if you thought your opponent was cheating like that.

Plus this assumes a closed environment where your opponent is the only person playing an army; its very possible that most larger groups will have mutltiple people playing the same army so you can very easily see when one person is making stuff up about models that everyone else plays and says are a totally different model.

Ye and if you play and someone say these unit has weapon xy you will se Ever thing with a picture before playing?
Think everyone is using some kind of army list, and there is no issue to give the list to you're opponent and he can see what unit have Wich weapon and so on. Much more eysier then try to show pictures and so on

Don't get me wrong I like wysiwyg but really 460 arms needed for one unit? Hell no.....

You keep saying 460arms like a person has that many different weapons to learn for one unit - they are not all unique weapons with their own profile.

They are
As statet above
You need for on nob
One slugga arm
Two choppa arms
One klaw
Two saw
One power stabba
One combi flamerone combi rocket
One big choppa arm
One shoota
One kustom shoota
If you magnetize
11 different arms for one nob dude...

The point is where the hell you want to get all these bitz?


And every nob can have every option

Yes but that's only 9 different weapons for your opponent to identify not 460.

Yes if you want to have every single nob able to take every single weapon, but that's a separate discussion, though not invalid to consider.

Dude it's 11 bitz needen for one nob... And Avery nib can get every option and double

Ye it's not 460 ( was just sad for damn a lot)
It's about 110 arms needed for on squat

T1nk4bell wrote:
Dude it's 11 bitz needen for one nob... And Avery nib can get every option and double

Ye it's not 460 ( was just sad for damn a lot)
It's about 110 arms needed for on squat

But why is this particularly important? Do you feel the absolute need for every option to be within your disposal at all times in order to make a unit playable?

Well yes, if you want to play wysiwyg and you want play it a lot of years you damn it need every single one because one edi option x is good one edi option x is crap and so on.

There is just no problem to say these nobz has all double choppa / and the model has stabba choppa on.
The most people have never seen a stabba

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
In my opinion, I think it's just as easy to just play with what you've got modelled, even if it's not as powerful, as it is to tell them that actually, they've all got XYZ.

I don't understand why people can't just play with different weapons that might not be the top choices in a casual game.
In a tournament, sure, you wouldn't want to do that, but similarly, in a tournament, most seem to strongly advocate for WYSIWYG.

What would be the most fair is, if you're playing against someone with "proxied" (not really a proxy, but I'm sure you get what I mean) weapons is play two games - one where they get to equip whatever they want, WYSIWYG be damned, and another where you ask them to stick to what their guys are actually carrying.

Because thematically Red Butchers should all have Chain Axes, Power Axes, or Chainfists and you can't do the default loadout for the unit. Why should you insist someone play their army non-thematically?

sieGermans wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
In my opinion, I think it's just as easy to just play with what you've got modelled, even if it's not as powerful, as it is to tell them that actually, they've all got XYZ.

I don't understand why people can't just play with different weapons that might not be the top choices in a casual game.
In a tournament, sure, you wouldn't want to do that, but similarly, in a tournament, most seem to strongly advocate for WYSIWYG.

What would be the most fair is, if you're playing against someone with "proxied" (not really a proxy, but I'm sure you get what I mean) weapons is play two games - one where they get to equip whatever they want, WYSIWYG be damned, and another where you ask them to stick to what their guys are actually carrying.

Because some of the options are fundamentally different from each other, and some people enjoy the fun of trying different configurations (with multiple data points) or are playing a specific theme to their army, etc.

I can see that, but that's just the same in my eyes as proxying a unit to see how it plays. And that's fine, testing out things to see if they're good, if they're something you like, etc - short term proxies - is all fine.

It's when you have people taking things that were clearly "meta" or whatever in previous editions, and then just taking the current "meta" options without doing anything to their models. By all means, enjoy the game how you like, I encourage you to! But if your own enjoyment is stifled by other people proxying, you also have every right to refuse to play them.

For me personally, if you're just going to ignore the visual aspect of the game, I think you're missing out on several other dimensions of the hobby. That's not to say you're doing it "wrong" at all - if you don't like the modelling/painting, you shouldn't feel forced into doing it or anything! I'm just interested to know why some people are so willing to throw out that part of the hobby.

So if all cases are covered, it really is just a personal preference.

Yeah, it really is a personal preference at the end of the day - it really just boils down to whether you prioritise the aesthetics, or the in-game effectiveness. Both are just as valid as eachother - but that doesn't mean they're always compatible.

T1nk4bell wrote:Well you have no other chance of you don't know all Modells he still could say whatever he want and you diddent notice

Except it's not hard to google or even look in a codex to see what something is supposed to look like.

T1nk4bell wrote:Well yes, if you want to play wysiwyg and you want play it a lot of years you damn it need every single one because one edi option x is good one edi option x is crap and so on.

If you're not willing to compromise and equip a slightly worse option, even thought it was good last year or whatever, that's not your opponent's problem.

I have squads that were pretty well armed in previous editions. Now they're not so optimal. But I'm okay with that, and if I asked my opponent "hey, I know they're modelled with all of this, but it's actually good in this edition to have them with XYZ, so I'm arming them with that", I'd fully expect them to say "what's wrong with having a slightly worse weapon?" - and that's something I'd deal with.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
In my opinion, I think it's just as easy to just play with what you've got modelled, even if it's not as powerful, as it is to tell them that actually, they've all got XYZ.

I don't understand why people can't just play with different weapons that might not be the top choices in a casual game.
In a tournament, sure, you wouldn't want to do that, but similarly, in a tournament, most seem to strongly advocate for WYSIWYG.

What would be the most fair is, if you're playing against someone with "proxied" (not really a proxy, but I'm sure you get what I mean) weapons is play two games - one where they get to equip whatever they want, WYSIWYG be damned, and another where you ask them to stick to what their guys are actually carrying.

Because thematically Red Butchers should all have Chain Axes, Power Axes, or Chainfists and you can't do the default loadout for the unit. Why should you insist someone play their army non-thematically?

Red Butchers can be armed with whatever they like. There's no rule saying they *need* to have those weapons. I'm sure that there's Red Butchers out there with power fists and lightning claws. It'd be like saying "all White Scars are Bikers" - there's clearly exceptions to the stereotype.

The box is a Chaos Terminator box, not a Red Butchers box.

Obviously, I would *like* every weapon option. However, I feel that even *if* every weapon option, or even every default option were included in the box, there would still be people saying "yeah, these guys are *modelled* with <insert meta weapons from two editions ago>, but they're actually armed with <insert meta weapons from current edition>".
Though, I suppose that's more an issue I have with that kind of mindset than the proxying itself.

I think a lot of people downplaying the usefulness of WYSIWYG because "you can't know every single weapon in the game" is forgetting something important.

I know Jack squat about nids. I cannot name most of their weapons and the few I can I don't exactly know what they look like. But if my opponent is WYSIWYG, I can still get a rough idea of what a unit does at a glance. Let's say there's some big monster in the backline with a cannon the size of a telephone pole. I may not know exactly what it is, but I can take a safe bet and figure it's AT, or maybe an artillery weapon. That means it's shooty and probably won't move, and might not want to be in melee. In a glance of a couple of seconds, I have got a rough tactical plan and can go back to what I'm doing, because I'm running 100 infantry and 10 tanks because I'm guard and I need to constantly be moving if we want this game done in 3 hours. But if that model is a proxy for a nid with some big stabby weapons, I at a glance don't know that.

"BUT YOU CAN JUST ASK!" Yeah, I can.
"Hey, what's this guy do?"
"Which one, the trygon or the carnifex"
"That one with the big cannon"
"Oh he's a melee carnifex, I just don't have one handy"
"What kind of melee weapons?"
"These big crushy claws for killing tanks."

You know what would've also told me that info and not wasted 30 seconds of my time? A nid with big stabby claws glued on it

And I can ask for that tiny unit of gribbly dudes over in the corner, and the unit in the building, and the other big guy across the table. That 30 seconds of asking for each unit adds up very quickly and gets old fast. And that's if the opponent had the courtesy of identical loadouts, heaven help you if he decided each squad is going to have different loadouts with the same models (the dreaded "these flamers are meltas but THESE flamers are plasma") Games already take hours to complete, especially with a little bit of friendly chat. You waste a lot of time when I ask you "what's that unit?" and you've got to thumb through battlescribe to figure out what it's armed with and what it does because you didn't bring a codex either. And you're getting an advantage because now I'm spending time remembering what a unit actually is, especially if I'm familiar with your army and know what it is actually armed with. I have to constantly remind myself "that's not a battlecannon, it's a punisher cannon" and stuff like that. I know it sounds pedantic but if the game is going to continue to be played at 2k by God we need as little extra hassle added to the mental effort as possible.

My opponent doesn't need to know the fine details for each of my tank cannons. He can probably rub enough brain cells together to know that the tank with the Gatling cannon has lots of antiinfantry shots and the tank with humongous stubby cannon is a short range heavy hitter. That's the purpose of WYSIWYG, so that you can save your questions for more important and pertinent info like "what's the range on that gun" or "how fast do those winged guys move?" Playing with a lot of proxies because you can't afford the models sucks, I get that, but it's common courtesy. If you are playing this game solely for rules and you don't like the hobby side you're insane, there are so many better games out there mechanically. If you don't see a point in at least trying to match the models what is the point? Computer games are cheaper and better balanced and you don't even have to paint.

Keep in mind I've got no issues with 3rd party models and conversions as long as they look the part. A tank with a Gatling cannon still has something that looks like a Gatling cannon. Your space marine standin still looks like a big dude in heavy armor, etc. My issue is when a leman Russ is a basilisk or a meltagun is now a flamer. Just to be clear on that bit

Very good post Mr Moustaffa, agreed completely!

Sometimes when I don't like how the official weapon looks, I might built something else, I try to make sure it still visually conveys what sort of a weapon it is. (Usually combining several bits, so it doesn't look exactly like some existing weapon either,)

For example I don't like how stormbolters look on Battle Sisters, so I built a sort of machine gun looking big bolter for one of them out of primaris auto bolt rifle and some additional bits. I think it still conveys the idea of a fast firing bolt weapon.

Someone that doesn't use WYSIWYG mentioned their opponent wasn't able to label the different ork weapons.

I think this is a disadvantage of non-wysiwyg - changing the rules for a model each time you play prevents your opponent from being able to learn which weapon does what nor what that weapon should look like, and this puts them at a disadvantage when they do get into a wysiwyg match.