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.

The Deathwing Terminator kit can build every NON-tartaros or Cataphractii Terminator kit minus the fact you get one thunder hammer. (I know it's been years GW but you were literally four hammers from perfection.)
Should I whine I about not having enough hammers?
Should I go on eBay or a bits store and get some?
Use some assault Terminators for hammers?
Go to Forgeworld?
Maybe grab some metal rods and greenstuff and convert?

There are many options to get your models up to wysiwyg. Also don't go be me the Ork complaints. Tau battlesuits have a ton of non represented or under represented options it's the way it is.
Should GW do better? Well if you look at the old dreadnaught entry and the one now. They cut off many options. Is that what you want convert it or use a consistent stand in. It's just good manners

Must we go on and on about the Chaos Terminator kit? It doesn't contain enough of any melee weapon to arm the full squad with any specific weapon. Therefore GW, in their infinite wisdom, selected the cheapest of the options as the default option. No evil scheme to get you to purchase multiple kits to arm a full squad. Just as many options as they felt comfortable placing on the sprue along with all the parts to assemble the unit. Notice how you do get enough head, torso, arms, legs, and combi-bolters to build 5 models?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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?

Dunno wich tournements you play but I have never seen wysiwyg as a hard restriction.
There where scrapjets like UFOs in itc.
Self made mek gunz everywhere and so on Noone relay Noone complain

Played in competitions with my Orks. RT figures including mono pose metal, multi part, the works. Of course, very few would qualify now as WYSIWYG miniatures - care to guess’s how many complaints I got?

Seems the Rule of Cool still trumps WYSIWYG, which itself seems to be a rule to stop ‘Dick Waac’ from springing ‘gotcha!’ moments on unsuspecting opponents, rather than a way of screwing extra money out of players.

T1nk4bell wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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?

Dunno wich tournements you play but I have never seen wysiwyg as a hard restriction.
There where scrapjets like UFOs in itc.
Self made mek gunz everywhere and so on Noone relay Noone complain

You have no clue as to what you were seeing, or why it was OK, do you?

I have exactly clue, just a lot of self builds at the torunements that I played, there was never a problem to use things like that.
I played VS warglaive dreads, trukk mek gunz, other where playing vs pure exodites Aeldari self made, and so on.
Not one player complain about that and not one to shut a game down because of self made things. And they are all not wysiwyg they are all self made things

No one is complaining about conversions. You're confusing things.

Nah it's exactly the same, a self made scrap jet that looks like an ufo, with fantasy guns is just not wysiwyg.
So that's no problem?
But a primaris holding a bolter instead of a stalker bolter is a problem? Common...

Someone played shoota boys ( with choppa slugga) on last itc torunement Noone had a problem

T1nk4bell wrote:

But a primaris holding a bolter instead of a stalker bolter is a problem?

I don't believe anyone said that.

A flamer as a plasma gun? Different thing entirely.

I’m good with a squads basic load out being non-WYSIWYG if you just declare what they all are. The special weapons are what tend to be a PitA. Vehicles with a basic load out would be pretty easy to understand as well.

To me, WYSIWYG is a way to avoid confusion for opponents in a tourney setting. Sometimes it’s hard enough to distinguish the tiny weapons on models from across a table without then having to remember that that’s really not what that squad has.

T1nk4bell wrote:
Nah it's exactly the same, a self made scrap jet that looks like an ufo, with fantasy guns is just not wysiwyg.
So that's no problem?
But a primaris holding a bolter instead of a stalker bolter is a problem? Common...

Someone played shoota boys ( with choppa slugga) on last itc torunement Noone had a problem

No, because they are different things.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

T1nk4bell wrote:

But a primaris holding a bolter instead of a stalker bolter is a problem?

I don't believe anyone said that.

A flamer as a plasma gun? Different thing entirely.

The bolter example seems specifically chosen and used to ignore that there are some exemptions to wysiwyg that most people find acceptable.
The intent seems to be that if the bolters are fine then why can't any random flamer be a plasma gun. It's an argument for it's own sake. "If this thing is fine then why not this other thing".
Or it's trolling.

 alextroy wrote:
Must we go on and on about the Chaos Terminator kit? It doesn't contain enough of any melee weapon to arm the full squad with any specific weapon. Therefore GW, in their infinite wisdom, selected the cheapest of the options as the default option. No evil scheme to get you to purchase multiple kits to arm a full squad. Just as many options as they felt comfortable placing on the sprue along with all the parts to assemble the unit. Notice how you do get enough head, torso, arms, legs, and combi-bolters to build 5 models?

How about the normal CSM kit, which doesn't have enough bolters or chainsword/bolt pistols to equip the whole squad? Eldar War Walker, having one of each weapon, even the default? Havocs sping to mind too, although I'm less concerned that there's not enough of each heavy weapon to outfit each guy than I am that the one new weapon was only offered once, vs the rest's twice. Chaincannons are easy enough to convert though.

 alextroy wrote:
Must we go on and on about the Chaos Terminator kit? It doesn't contain enough of any melee weapon to arm the full squad with any specific weapon. Therefore GW, in their infinite wisdom, selected the cheapest of the options as the default option. No evil scheme to get you to purchase multiple kits to arm a full squad. Just as many options as they felt comfortable placing on the sprue along with all the parts to assemble the unit. Notice how you do get enough head, torso, arms, legs, and combi-bolters to build 5 models?

Chaos Terminators are the cherry picked out. And when asked to rationalize the situation they throw out all the other kits that do have multiple options already mentioned previously. They're arguing against themselves and they don't even know it.

It seems clear to me that GW opted to a "two sprue" standard for cost cutting measures. I'm really sorry that its hard to build the "default", but literally no human being with a budget is going to buy 5 kits just to arm 5 models with chain axes. Cut grooves in the power axe, poach from other kits, and get creative. Anything else is just grandstanding.

 captain collius wrote:
The Deathwing Terminator kit can build every NON-tartaros or Cataphractii Terminator kit minus the fact you get one thunder hammer. (I know it's been years GW but you were literally four hammers from perfection.)
Should I whine I about not having enough hammers?
Should I go on eBay or a bits store and get some?
Use some assault Terminators for hammers?
Go to Forgeworld?
Maybe grab some metal rods and greenstuff and convert?

There are many options to get your models up to wysiwyg. Also don't go be me the Ork complaints. Tau battlesuits have a ton of non represented or under represented options it's the way it is.
Should GW do better? Well if you look at the old dreadnaught entry and the one now. They cut off many options. Is that what you want convert it or use a consistent stand in. It's just good manners

Let's see, 2nd ed dreadnought rules:

Power Claw and Stormbolter
Lightning Claw and Heavy Flamer
Heavy Flamer and Storm Bolter
Twin-Linked Heavy Bolter
Heavy Plasma Gun
Assault Cannon
Missile Launcher
Twin lascannon
Multi-Melta

Seems like you now lack the heavy flamer+storm bolter and the lightning claw. But, you can now do powerfist with heavy flamer. Also, they added twin autocannon, and you no longer require a Techmarine in your army to field a dreadnought.

Also, the double-gun variants are now on a separate profile of the Mortis Dreadnought. but they still exist.

 warhead01 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

T1nk4bell wrote:

But a primaris holding a bolter instead of a stalker bolter is a problem?

I don't believe anyone said that.

A flamer as a plasma gun? Different thing entirely.

The bolter example seems specifically chosen and used to ignore that there are some exemptions to wysiwyg that most people find acceptable.
The intent seems to be that if the bolters are fine then why can't any random flamer be a plasma gun. It's an argument for it's own sake. "If this thing is fine then why not this other thing".
Or it's trolling.

Nah no trolling, it's because someone sad on torunements is " strikt" wysiwyg.
That's simply not true. Noone cares about things like bolter / stalker bolter. The same guy wrote he would shut down a game if someone use stalker bolter and has normal bolters in Modell because he has no game fun than, just wanted to show how overextended it was.

BTW how someone like that handle relic weapons? ')

Most posters: we accept mostly common sense and courtesy, plus it's in the rulebook.


A few poster: but... but.. but here is the random example of less than 1% of kits that can't be WYSIWYG to some fluffy random build!


Pretty much the entire thread. Not gonna touch the absurdity of owning 100+ arms to swap out one freaking Ork Nob...

It's in the rule book? Where?

It's been in the rulebook before. It might not be in there now, but then GW is currently in a VERY "here's some rules you can use them if you want, but we don't force you to use them" attitude when it comes to questions like this.

Oh and where was it before?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:
Most posters: we accept mostly common sense and courtesy, plus it's in the rulebook.


A few poster: but... but.. but here is the random example of less than 1% of kits that can't be WYSIWYG to some fluffy random build!


Pretty much the entire thread. Not gonna touch the absurdity of owning 100+ arms to swap out one freaking Ork Nob...

Has nothing to do with fluffy random build.
And with the nobz it's not absurd.
I play orks myself and sometimes I use double choppa nobz with 1 klaw.
Sometimes I use big choppa nobz.
Sometimes I use choppa slugga.
Sometimes double choppa 2 combi rocketz
Sometimes klaws
Sometimes slugga choppa
It's not absurd its real.
I have the luck That I have 87 nobz painted to show the most options if I play just 10.
But the most may not

The problem is every single option is playable and its 11 arms needed for one nob to show it

Some of the options are no problem to count as, some are nogoes for sure.
But we'll in a box in 1 power stabba and it's nothing than a needle thing, no prob to count a choppa as stabba.
It's just hard to get.

And more than 29 times now.
There is no problem if one player say my choppa are stabba

T1nk4bell wrote:

Has nothing to do with fluffy random build.
And with the nobz it's not absurd.
I play orks myself and sometimes I use double choppa nobz with 1 klaw.
Sometimes I use big choppa nobz.
Sometimes I use choppa slugga.
Sometimes double choppa 2 combi rocketz
Sometimes klaws
Sometimes slugga choppa
It's not absurd its real.
I have the luck That I have 87 nobz painted to show the most options if I play just 10.
But the most may not

The problem is every single option is playable and its 11 arms needed for one nob to show it

And you don't need to use all of those options.

Ofc no you don't have to, but a lot of people want to?
You will never see a squat of nobz with 10 original power stabba.
The point is there is one in the box so everyone build his own stabba, so every stabba will look different so no point for wysiwyg
It makes no different to say these choppa count as stabba or these self made Plastik things are stabbas

T1nk4bell wrote:
Oh and where was it before?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:
Most posters: we accept mostly common sense and courtesy, plus it's in the rulebook.


A few poster: but... but.. but here is the random example of less than 1% of kits that can't be WYSIWYG to some fluffy random build!


Pretty much the entire thread. Not gonna touch the absurdity of owning 100+ arms to swap out one freaking Ork Nob...

Has nothing to do with fluffy random build.
And with the nobz it's not absurd.
I play orks myself and sometimes I use double choppa nobz with 1 klaw.
Sometimes I use big choppa nobz.
Sometimes I use choppa slugga.
Sometimes double choppa 2 combi rocketz
Sometimes klaws
Sometimes slugga choppa
It's not absurd its real.
I have the luck That I have 87 nobz painted to show the most options if I play just 10.
But the most may not

The problem is every single option is playable and its 11 arms needed for one nob to show it

Some of the options are no problem to count as, some are nogoes for sure.
But we'll in a box in 1 power stabba and it's nothing than a needle thing, no prob to count a choppa as stabba.
It's just hard to get.

And more than 29 times now.
There is no problem if one player say my choppa are stabba

I suspect that you are only trolling but why not use the weapons that the model has?

Without WYSIWYG this whole hobby becomes rather pointless.

 jhnbrg wrote:

T1nk4bell wrote:
Oh and where was it before?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:
Most posters: we accept mostly common sense and courtesy, plus it's in the rulebook.


A few poster: but... but.. but here is the random example of less than 1% of kits that can't be WYSIWYG to some fluffy random build!


Pretty much the entire thread. Not gonna touch the absurdity of owning 100+ arms to swap out one freaking Ork Nob...

Has nothing to do with fluffy random build.
And with the nobz it's not absurd.
I play orks myself and sometimes I use double choppa nobz with 1 klaw.
Sometimes I use big choppa nobz.
Sometimes I use choppa slugga.
Sometimes double choppa 2 combi rocketz
Sometimes klaws
Sometimes slugga choppa
It's not absurd its real.
I have the luck That I have 87 nobz painted to show the most options if I play just 10.
But the most may not

The problem is every single option is playable and its 11 arms needed for one nob to show it

Some of the options are no problem to count as, some are nogoes for sure.
But we'll in a box in 1 power stabba and it's nothing than a needle thing, no prob to count a choppa as stabba.
It's just hard to get.

And more than 29 times now.
There is no problem if one player say my choppa are stabba

I suspect that you are only trolling but why not use the weapons that the model has?

Without WYSIWYG this whole hobby becomes rather pointless.

Because he must use the most... efficient... option... that.... the.... meta... demands... to eke out every single point from a list.

Most people who are against WYSIWYG and vehemently dig their heels in are just pissed some options they built are now second best.

Well that's you're feeling not mine.
At home with friends people want to try things before buy so no wysiwyg needed.

In competetiv play the " competetiv" hobby even don't need models. Just barrels or chess sticks with count as stickers would be enough.

Wysiwyg is beautiful but in my eyes never a need. It easy goes without it


And Ou even get me wrong!!
I play wysiwyg!
I love wysiwyg
It looks cooler
It looks clear.
But it's no prob to play without it

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

T1nk4bell wrote:

But a primaris holding a bolter instead of a stalker bolter is a problem?

I don't believe anyone said that.

A flamer as a plasma gun? Different thing entirely.

No it isn't. Each Primaris Bolt Rifle is fundamentally different in terms of targets and range, JUST like the Flamer vs Plasma Gun.

What did you do to denote which model in the squad has which weapon somewhere the other player can see it?
WYSIWYG is "The models are each carrying a model piece that either is or looks like the model piece that represents that option. In other words, you can tell which trooper has the laser cannon because that model has a laser cannon." Twenty five or more years of people trying to solve the problem of "I don't have the right parts to build what I want to build" have led to all sorts of creative solutions like "Use a similar part someone else made", "Make your own similar part", and so on.

If someone doesn't want to use wysiwyg, then they have to answer the question "So what are you doing to allow the other player to easily tell which trooper in the squad has each option/weapon?" There are all sorts of acceptable and reasonable answers, and there are a whole bunch of answers aren't acceptable or that don't work in practice.

"I'm going to ask you to remember which is which" will be met with "So you won't mind if I use a marker/a piece of paper/some other indicator and put it on that model so that we both know what it's supposed to be?" If that's not acceptable, then the result is going to be failure to play the game.

It's the same situation if you've got fifty models on the table that are five units of ten. If you're going to play, both players are going to need to be able to tell which model's in which unit.

I tend to want to play the models as they appear and wish that the rules system would support that...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

T1nk4bell wrote:

But a primaris holding a bolter instead of a stalker bolter is a problem?

I don't believe anyone said that.

A flamer as a plasma gun? Different thing entirely.

No it isn't. Each Primaris Bolt Rifle is fundamentally different in terms of targets and range, JUST like the Flamer vs Plasma Gun.

They're really not. Let's go over the similarities of every bolt rifle build:
30", with a +/-6" either side.
Always S4.
AP -1, with a +/-1 either side.
D1, barring one variant, which is D2.
Heavy, Rapid Fire, or Assault, with shots appropriately.

Versus flamer and plasma:
8" versus 24"
S4 versus S7/S8
D1 versus D1/D2
AP0 versus AP-3
D6 hits versus Rapid Fire
Autohitting versus overcharge

That's way more different, in aesthetics (at least all bolt rifles have roughly the same core aesthetic - they're built from the same rifle body), in function, and in impact on the game.

So, Flamer versus Plasma have 7 changes-Strength, Range, Damage, AP, Shot count, Weapon type, and one rule.

Bolt Rifles have 5-Range, AP, Shot Count, damage, and Weapon type.

I get that there’s MORE differences, but that’s still a lot of differences between the bolts.