Wysiwyg exists to force people to buy extra models

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.

**Nitro Zeus**

Strg Alt wrote:
@ 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 am a fan of WYSIWYG, and even more so of people painting their minis, but this slippery slope is just silly.

**T1nk4bell**

nareik wrote:
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.

How you came to the think that I don't use wysiwyg?

I play wysiwyg but I think the idea to tell my opponent that want to play shoota boys and just have slugga boys " no I don't play with you blah blah" there is no problem of he do so

**Slayer-Fan123**

T1nk4bell wrote:
nareik wrote:
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.

How you came to the think that I don't use wysiwyg?

I play wysiwyg but I think the idea to tell my opponent that want to play shoota boys and just have slugga boys " no I don't play with you blah blah" there is no problem of he do so

Heh. Queue the quick response "you can refuse a game with anyone!!!!!1!" which is ultimately toxic by itself moreso than not following WYSIWYG.

**T1nk4bell**

Exakt, that's what I ment!

Wysiwyg is beautiful, but I don't think a must have.
To say no I don't play with you because you don't have the time, the money, or whatever to bring fully wysiwyg is pretty crappy.
So what's the point of the discussion.
There is no rule of wysiwyg
The is no rule for self made wysiwyg weapons and stuff.
It looks nice if someone can bring full wysiwyg
There is no problem if it's not all wysiwyg.
Never met an army where wrything is not wysiwyg.
Sometimes well these captain has a power sword and it don't have on the model. That's no problem.
Deny a game because of that? No.

**warhead01**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
T1nk4bell wrote:
nareik wrote:
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.

How you came to the think that I don't use wysiwyg?

I play wysiwyg but I think the idea to tell my opponent that want to play shoota boys and just have slugga boys " no I don't play with you blah blah" there is no problem of he do so

Heh. Queue the quick response "you can refuse a game with anyone!!!!!1!" which is ultimately toxic by itself moreso than not following WYSIWYG.

Please explain what is toxic about turning down a game. From my point of view if I do not think I will have fun I will not be playing.

**Slayer-Fan123**

warhead01 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
T1nk4bell wrote:
nareik wrote:
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.

How you came to the think that I don't use wysiwyg?

I play wysiwyg but I think the idea to tell my opponent that want to play shoota boys and just have slugga boys " no I don't play with you blah blah" there is no problem of he do so

Heh. Queue the quick response "you can refuse a game with anyone!!!!!1!" which is ultimately toxic by itself moreso than not following WYSIWYG.

Please explain what is toxic about turning down a game. From my point of view if I do not think I will have fun I will not be playing.

It's because this all boils down to imbalance causing these issues. Some of the weirdos here can say pick up games are the problem, but pickup games ARE the majority for people, and more importantly pickup games are what eventually creates those groups instead of telling everyone to invest $500+ into something you have to edit yourself.
I personally never turn down a game as someone could be new to the area and needs to get that fix. Other times it's someone's first game and being told you're doing it wrong is bad. The only people doing anything wrong are GW themselves and y'all need to hold them responsible like I do.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
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.

You clearly don't know anything about the Red Butchers. They're Combi-Bolters + Power Axe or Chainaxe, with the ability to replace the Bolter for another Power/Chainaxe or Lightning Claws for both, and then the Sarge gets access to Chainfists.
So how am I stereotyping the dudes when that's literally how they're supposed to be?

**Crimson**

What the hell are you talking about Slayer? If you're committed to some thematic build then get the parts and model it.

**T1nk4bell**

warhead01 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
T1nk4bell wrote:
nareik wrote:
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.

How you came to the think that I don't use wysiwyg?

I play wysiwyg but I think the idea to tell my opponent that want to play shoota boys and just have slugga boys " no I don't play with you blah blah" there is no problem of he do so

Heh. Queue the quick response "you can refuse a game with anyone!!!!!1!" which is ultimately toxic by itself moreso than not following WYSIWYG.

Please explain what is toxic about turning down a game. From my point of view if I do not think I will have fun I will not be playing.

You're game fun is so bad that if you're opponent playing a primaris squad moddeled with bolter and he want to play stalker bolter ( and pay for the points) that you shut down the match?
That's just..... Blah dude

**Slayer-Fan123**

Crimson wrote:
What the hell are you talking about Slayer? If you're committed to some thematic build then get the parts and model it.

The parts are already part of the default loadout for the squad, one that cannot be made from the kit. Why should anyone buy FIVE kits to make the default loadout of Combi-Bolter + Chainaxe?

**Grimtuff**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Crimson wrote:
What the hell are you talking about Slayer? If you're committed to some thematic build then get the parts and model it.

The parts are already part of the default loadout for the squad, one that cannot be made from the kit. Why should anyone buy FIVE kits to make the default loadout of Combi-Bolter + Chainaxe?

Oh please, if you're buying FW in the first place why is it an issue to get combi bolters, (which are literally two fething bolters strapped together. You're telling me as a CSM player you don't have 10 bolters lying around? Pull the other one) which is pence on the pound in the grand scheme of things?

**Sgt_Smudge**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:You clearly don't know anything about the Red Butchers. They're Combi-Bolters + Power Axe or Chainaxe, with the ability to replace the Bolter for another Power/Chainaxe or Lightning Claws for both, and then the Sarge gets access to Chainfists.
So how am I stereotyping the dudes when that's literally how they're supposed to be?

If you want to build them "how they're supposed to be", buy the Red Butchers Squad from FW.

Otherwise, build whatever Terminators you like, and call them Red Butchers. The important part about them is how they're basically just maddened Astartes locked inside their armour, and released at the enemy like wild animals, instead of as a bodyguard for Angron, not that they have a love of chainaxes. Obviously I think they're super flavourful, but your implication of "they're not REAL Red Butcher if they aren't only carrying chainaxes" simply ain't true.

Just equipping your guys with chain weaponry doesn't mean they need to be Red Butchers. The stratagem for them only specifies Terminator Squad, not that they need to "only carry chain weaponry". Therefore, you can absolutely have flavourful Red Butchers with ANY loadout from the box.

**warhead01**

T1nk4bell wrote:

You're game fun is so bad that if you're opponent playing a primaris squad moddeled with bolter and he want to play stalker bolter ( and pay for the points) that you shut down the match?
That's just..... Blah dude

My fun is important to me and it goes beyond just the models or set of count as units but to the person I might play against and there personality. As far as I know the game should be fun for both players. If two people wont enjoy the time spent around the table in each others company then why bother. Your example is very clever but misses the point as well. A bolter counting as another bolter isn't a tactical marine counting as an OP unit the player does not actually have. It's not the same thing as this unit had one more model, which I forgot at home and this guy is standing in and will be the first one I pick up when they loose a model. There are reasonable exceptions that I would be fine with to have a friendly game.
But I would turn a game down rather than stand around a table in a poor mood or in unpleasant or irritating company.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Grimtuff wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Crimson wrote:
What the hell are you talking about Slayer? If you're committed to some thematic build then get the parts and model it.

The parts are already part of the default loadout for the squad, one that cannot be made from the kit. Why should anyone buy FIVE kits to make the default loadout of Combi-Bolter + Chainaxe?

Oh please, if you're buying FW in the first place why is it an issue to get combi bolters, (which are literally two fething bolters strapped together. You're telling me as a CSM player you don't have 10 bolters lying around? Pull the other one) which is pence on the pound in the grand scheme of things?

You're clearly missing some information somewhere so I'm gonna allow you to clarify what you're babbling about, also you forgot the cost of FW stuff for the most part.

**Crimson**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

The parts are already part of the default loadout for the squad, one that cannot be made from the kit. Why should anyone buy FIVE kits to make the default loadout of Combi-Bolter + Chainaxe?

There is absolutely no reason that all Red Butchers need to be equipped that way. But if it is so super important to you that they are, then get the bloody parts.

https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-FI/Chain-Axes
https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-FI/Legion-Tartaros-Terminator-Power-Axe-Set

These might help. You're welcome!

**Slayer-Fan123**

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:You clearly don't know anything about the Red Butchers. They're Combi-Bolters + Power Axe or Chainaxe, with the ability to replace the Bolter for another Power/Chainaxe or Lightning Claws for both, and then the Sarge gets access to Chainfists.
So how am I stereotyping the dudes when that's literally how they're supposed to be?
If you want to build them "how they're supposed to be", buy the Red Butchers Squad from FW.

Otherwise, build whatever Terminators you like, and call them Red Butchers. The important part about them is how they're basically just maddened Astartes locked inside their armour, and released at the enemy like wild animals, instead of as a bodyguard for Angron, not that they have a love of chainaxes. Obviously I think they're super flavourful, but your implication of "they're not REAL Red Butcher if they aren't only carrying chainaxes" simply ain't true.

Just equipping your guys with chain weaponry doesn't mean they need to be Red Butchers. The stratagem for them only specifies Terminator Squad, not that they need to "only carry chain weaponry". Therefore, you can absolutely have flavourful Red Butchers with ANY loadout from the box.

You like to really purposely miss the point don't you?

**Grimtuff**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:You clearly don't know anything about the Red Butchers. They're Combi-Bolters + Power Axe or Chainaxe, with the ability to replace the Bolter for another Power/Chainaxe or Lightning Claws for both, and then the Sarge gets access to Chainfists.
So how am I stereotyping the dudes when that's literally how they're supposed to be?
If you want to build them "how they're supposed to be", buy the Red Butchers Squad from FW.

Otherwise, build whatever Terminators you like, and call them Red Butchers. The important part about them is how they're basically just maddened Astartes locked inside their armour, and released at the enemy like wild animals, instead of as a bodyguard for Angron, not that they have a love of chainaxes. Obviously I think they're super flavourful, but your implication of "they're not REAL Red Butcher if they aren't only carrying chainaxes" simply ain't true.

Just equipping your guys with chain weaponry doesn't mean they need to be Red Butchers. The stratagem for them only specifies Terminator Squad, not that they need to "only carry chain weaponry". Therefore, you can absolutely have flavourful Red Butchers with ANY loadout from the box.

You like to really purposely miss the point don't you?

You like to think you're so woke and above everyone else.

Maybe try not making mountains out of molehills?

**Slayer-Fan123**

Crimson wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

The parts are already part of the default loadout for the squad, one that cannot be made from the kit. Why should anyone buy FIVE kits to make the default loadout of Combi-Bolter + Chainaxe?

There is absolutely no reason that all Red Butchers need to be equipped that way. But if it is so super important to you that they are, then get the bloody parts.

https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-FI/Chain-Axes
https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-FI/Legion-Tartaros-Terminator-Power-Axe-Set

These might help. You're welcome!

You aren't answering the question why the main Chaos Terminator Box shouldn't have the basic squad loadout, and why it's okay to force WYSIWYG due to poor layout of that kit plus various others.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grimtuff wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:You clearly don't know anything about the Red Butchers. They're Combi-Bolters + Power Axe or Chainaxe, with the ability to replace the Bolter for another Power/Chainaxe or Lightning Claws for both, and then the Sarge gets access to Chainfists.
So how am I stereotyping the dudes when that's literally how they're supposed to be?
If you want to build them "how they're supposed to be", buy the Red Butchers Squad from FW.

Otherwise, build whatever Terminators you like, and call them Red Butchers. The important part about them is how they're basically just maddened Astartes locked inside their armour, and released at the enemy like wild animals, instead of as a bodyguard for Angron, not that they have a love of chainaxes. Obviously I think they're super flavourful, but your implication of "they're not REAL Red Butcher if they aren't only carrying chainaxes" simply ain't true.

Just equipping your guys with chain weaponry doesn't mean they need to be Red Butchers. The stratagem for them only specifies Terminator Squad, not that they need to "only carry chain weaponry". Therefore, you can absolutely have flavourful Red Butchers with ANY loadout from the box.

You like to really purposely miss the point don't you?

You like to think you're so woke and above everyone else.

Maybe try not making mountains out of molehills?

If someone is going to enforce WYSIWYG that strictly they need to be called out on it.

**Jackal90**

The set includes 5 multipart plastic Chaos Terminators, each of which can be equipped with a variety of melee and ranged weapons. The following weapon options are included in the kit.

I’m not seeing where the set is designed to build red butchers.
The whole idea of using that as an argument is just plain stupid.
FW sell red butchers, use those.

Complaining about a kit because it doesn’t contain parts to build models (that it’s not supposed to build) is just plain amusing though.

So what’s next, a 40k vehicle kit is bad because it doesn’t build every known vehicle now? Lol.

If you want to make something using similar base models then by all means, but don’t complain out of laziness or unwillingness to buy the actual models.

**Grimtuff**

Jackal90 wrote:
The set includes 5 multipart plastic Chaos Terminators, each of which can be equipped with a variety of melee and ranged weapons. The following weapon options are included in the kit.

I’m not seeing where the set is designed to build red butchers.
The whole idea of using that as an argument is just plain stupid.
FW sell red butchers, use those.

Complaining about a kit because it doesn’t contain parts to build models (that it’s not supposed to build) is just plain amusing though.

So what’s next, a 40k vehicle kit is bad because it doesn’t build every known vehicle now? Lol.

If you want to make something using similar base models then by all means, but don’t complain out of laziness or unwillingness to buy the actual models.

Dude wouldn't have lasted five minutes in this hobby 15-20 year ago.

Oh noes? You have to convert something that is not in the box!?!?! What ever am I to do?

**Slayer-Fan123**

Jackal90 wrote:
The set includes 5 multipart plastic Chaos Terminators, each of which can be equipped with a variety of melee and ranged weapons. The following weapon options are included in the kit.

I’m not seeing where the set is designed to build red butchers.
The whole idea of using that as an argument is just plain stupid.
FW sell red butchers, use those.

Complaining about a kit because it doesn’t contain parts to build models (that it’s not supposed to build) is just plain amusing though.

So what’s next, a 40k vehicle kit is bad because it doesn’t build every known vehicle now? Lol.

If you want to make something using similar base models then by all means, but don’t complain out of laziness or unwillingness to buy the actual models.

So a kit isn't supposed to build a default loadout for the unit? Are you really arguing this?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grimtuff wrote:
Jackal90 wrote:
The set includes 5 multipart plastic Chaos Terminators, each of which can be equipped with a variety of melee and ranged weapons. The following weapon options are included in the kit.

I’m not seeing where the set is designed to build red butchers.
The whole idea of using that as an argument is just plain stupid.
FW sell red butchers, use those.

Complaining about a kit because it doesn’t contain parts to build models (that it’s not supposed to build) is just plain amusing though.

So what’s next, a 40k vehicle kit is bad because it doesn’t build every known vehicle now? Lol.

If you want to make something using similar base models then by all means, but don’t complain out of laziness or unwillingness to buy the actual models.

Dude wouldn't have lasted five minutes in this hobby 15-20 year ago.

Oh noes? You have to convert something that is not in the box!?!?! What ever am I to do?

That's not the argument whatsoever. A better equivalent would be the Attack Bike missing the Heavy Bolter, which is the default weapon. Why should someone have to do something to a kit that should've contained said part in the first place?

**Crimson**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You aren't answering the question why the main Chaos Terminator Box shouldn't have the basic squad loadout, and why it's okay to force WYSIWYG due to poor layout of that kit plus various others.

Because there was not enough space for all the possible combinations, and rather than have just several duplicates of one weapon they chose to have variety of weapons as the kit is more fun to build that way. And because the default loadout is just arbitrarily chosen and has no greater importance than any other possible combination. And because WYSIWYG is important for the clarity and immersiveness of the game, and because only WAAC care about having the optimal loadout all the time.

I hope this is clear now.

**JNAProductions**

Yes, how dare people try to play well! The horror! /s

**ccs**

Eldenfirefly wrote:

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.

All I require is that as my opponent you play you're models with the weapons you've built them with.
How you manage that is your problem.
You can buy 6-12 boxes. You can buy bitz off ebay/etc. You can scratch build. You can learn to make bitz molds via greenstuff/silicon/etc. You can magnetize weapons/arms. You can ue a 3d printer.....
Or, God forbid, you could just spend the next three-five turns using whatever you've actually modeled the things with.

**Grimtuff**

JNAProductions wrote:
Yes, how dare people try to play well! The horror! /s

So do you not have friends to trade bits with or other kits to chop and change with? That is quite literally one of the main strengths of the SM line, the cross compatibility of kits.

**Crimson**

JNAProductions wrote:
Yes, how dare people try to play well! The horror! /s

People who know how to play well don't need to min-max so desperately in the armybuilding stage.

**JNAProductions**

And a good general still makes units with a goal in mind.

A hodge-podge of random gear does not work well. And doesn’t look good either.

**Crimson**

JNAProductions wrote:
And a good general still makes units with a goal in mind.

A hodge-podge of random gear does not work well. And doesn’t look good either.

If you care so much then get the required bits. It is now easier than ever. People did it back when all models were monopose metals.

**Jackal90**

Red butchers aren’t a default loadout.
They are a specialised unit.

So what, you want a single box of terminators with enough parts to represent every single specialised terminator unit?
Sure.
So we also now need a character that comes with enough parts to be built as a librarian, tech marine, apothecary, Sgt, captain, commander and a chaplain.

Oh, wait, there are space and cost restrictions.
Sure, let’s have every option in a box, if you don’t mind payin ban additional 100% cost per box.
You’re complaining about not having enough parts and it costing more, yet to add them would do the same.

**Sgt_Smudge**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:You like to really purposely miss the point don't you?

Give me a good argument, and I'll give you a good answer.

You're complaining that you can't make *insert unique unit* out of a generic box, when, if you were so bothered, you could make a far more accurate version with a different one, and also wilfully ignoring the fact that you can easily make *insert unique unit* out of what the box gives you.

As I've already said, I'd like if GW gave all the generic options. My gripe is with the idea that "you must let me proxy things, because the box doesn't give me what's meta" when you could easily just play with what you've got modelled, and suck up about not having the ultimate tools for the job. In this hypothetical scenario where that's happening, it's probably a casual environment, not a tournament, because in tournaments, WYSIWYG is usually a strict requirement.
So, this is a casual game - why do you need to take the best weapons? Can't you settle for whatever you've got modelled on?

I suppose, more than anything, it comes down to *why* you're complaining about not every weapon being available in the boxes.
Is it because you actually really like the look of those weapons, or they fit the fluff/theme of your army? Or is it because that's the meta option right now?