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.

As it came up in the T5 Orks threat and I found it rather interesting: how adamant are you about WYSIWYG in the armies of an opponent?

The example was bought up that a player might say something like "you see these guys with the powerswords? For this game they are all wearing powerfist, ok?"

Are you personally ok with this? And where woukd you draw the line?



My personal stance is: As long as it is not purposely confusing, I would not mind about different weapons loadouts. If all grenade launchers are meltas for today, fine.

Proxy models: no problem, as long as it is rather obvious or if not, they are at least not to numerous. I have some myself, and would be Ok with stuff like "all the elefants in my army are sentinel powerlifters " (they have the same size, base and are obviously for melee)

GW models that are clearly something else standing in for another unit ("these scout Sentinels are armored sentinels") only if it is consistent. So preferably no mixing of normal and "counts as armored" Sentinels that look the same.

A paper cutoutof a Leman Russ picture: I... would prefer not. It would depend in the opponent. A kid that just started or someone who just wants to try a single new model before buying it: Ok, no problem. 9 "models" of the beweist OP hotness: nope...

I really only care about the weapons. Particularly the special/heavy ones. I want to look across the board and be able to tell at a glance which models are holding what. And I don't want the things mysteriously shifting around in the squad based on whatever is convenient atm (seen that waaay too much over the years.)

 Pyroalchi wrote:
...

Pretty much what you said.

If it's easy enough to remember then I'm fine with it.

Right now my heavy stubbers are run as meltas. When I modelled them the points were different...

In tournaments it is very important, as games must be finished quickly and non-WYSIWYG armies just create more confusion.
In RTTs it's common to find players not respecting it 100% because the TOs is never going to turn away one of the 20 players there on the day of the event and the list has already been submitted. Nevertheless, it's not nice to play a tournament game in this case.

In casual games, it's nice to have but I'd never turn a game down if my opponent was proxying weapons or models.
I always try to respect it 100% of the time as I think it makes for a better gaming experience.

I am the kind of player who builds models first and writes army list second. Sometimes I read the rules or other players army lists to decide what weapons to build but certainly not always. If I have built a Space marine with meltagun then I am going to use him as Space marine with meltagun, even if meltagun sucks in this edition (I have no idea). However, as a collector I would propably have extra Space Marines with other guns in my collection so that if I found meltagun useless, I could replace it with another model for the next game.

My general opinion towards wysiwyg that if you have the option to play wysiwyg, you should do it. If you claim that your Space Marines armed with heavy bolters use the rules for lascannons because they are better I might raise an eyebrow but I wouldn't pack my stuff and leave.

I think the person who has the option to play wysiwyg but decides not to is more of an "that guy" than the person who wishes the models were used as they are armed.

friendly matches, don't care at all. Do full Proxies, doesn't bother me.

Local tournaments, small things being wrong or even a very limited number of TO appoved proxies are fine.

Large Events, must be full WYSIWYG on all relevant choices (i.e. I don't need to see every grenade and chainsword but if you say something has a multimelta it better goddam have a multimelta.)

I can't tell the differance between a stalker bolt rifle and a standard bolt rifle on the table so within reason I don't care, so long as you tell me whats what at battle start I'm happy.

I appreciate someone who goes all out and goes for WYSIWYG (simply because I appreciate it when someone goes the extra mile in anything) but it's far from a requirement

Weapon options and unit types are crucial to look the same. Don't care if the models used are GW originals, recasts or third party, as long as the army has the same options look the same.

I think it’s important, but Only to a point. And I am used to games that handled it better than GW does. And I not sure any game has really had it as a hard rule thinking back of the ones I have play.

I still have no idea which is which on a intercessior. And with other things in the game, what weapon they have only matters based on what they can do with it anyway.

I don't care at all. As long as there is no confusion about what is what I feel free to proxy whatever I like and of course I accept proxies from my opponents as well.

That said I own pretty much everything I wanted to play for my armies, I magnetized all the key models, and I typically play full WYSIWYG.

In games with friends, I really don't mind at all.

Otherwise, "all X are Y" is fine, but as exceptions start being added, I'm less and less happy; I have enough on my plate, without having to remember which stuff in your army is something other that it appears.

BrianDavion wrote:
I can't tell the differance between a stalker bolt rifle and a standard bolt rifle on the table so within reason I don't care, so long as you tell me whats what at battle start I'm happy.

I'm the same.

I do think it is helpful if there is some consistency. For example, 'all my sergeants have Power Fists' is simple and easy to remember. I'll know that the leader of every relevant squad has a Power Fist, regardless of what he seems to be holding.

'All of my meltaguns are actually plasmaguns' is similarly fine. Obviously it requires me to be able to recognise the weapon in question (though I'm sure my opponent will allow me to look at one to get an idea) but otherwise it's similarly easy to remember.

The thing that can be frustrating is 'This power sword is actually a power fist but this one is a thunder hammer and this power fist here is also a thunder hammer, also the meltagun in this squad is a plasmagun but the melta in this unit is actually a flamer and then this unit has a flamer and melta representing a heavy bolter and plasma pistol . . .'

Not saying I wouldn't play against such an army but my opponent had better not complain when I have to constantly ask what all his units are armed with again.

The last thing I'll say is that I think Rule of Cool is a bit factor. I am more than happy for an opponent to have completely abandoned WYSIWYG in order to make some fun conversions or whatnot.

ccs wrote:
I really only care about the weapons. Particularly the special/heavy ones. I want to look across the board and be able to tell at a glance which models are holding what. And I don't want the things mysteriously shifting around in the squad based on whatever is convenient atm (seen that waaay too much over the years.)

Same. I don't care much about the basic guys (though Primaris make this weirder), but special and heavy and melee weapons need to be there. And since someone brought up sentinels, armored vs scout needs to be clear, because I've had someone pull that crap too.

"Oops, I forgot to mention... " has happened enough that I don't really have much tolerance for it.
And since it's a game about models, not having them correct is a bit baffling anyway.

I would prefer only having to keep track of 3 things that are not WYSWYG. It’s an arbitrary number, and flexible. But if I need to ask every time what something is, the game is going to bog down, or I’m going to get hit with a gotcha moment when my terminators deepstrike right next to a blob of plasma (in a totally non-hypothetical example from a few editions ago)

Things should be consistent. I’m OK with flamers being plasma guns, but they all should be. Your blue marines are using red marine rules? Fine. Easy to track. But if you are fielding multiple detachments, or only some units are proxied, that’s where the confusion starts.

Proxy close if you can. If you want to play your lascannons as Multimetas, that’s fine. I look at an AV weapon, and I get one. WYSWYG does not need to be literal, if it gets the point across. Your chaos lord might be geared with the mace of infinite pain, but you paid points for the blade of decimation. I don’t know these things, I’m a loyalist. What I see is a close combat monster, what I get is a blender that turns anything he touches into a cloud of gore. WYSWYG.

Just as an example from my own collection that I would call one of my better proxies:


The right is a sentinel powerlifter. It has the same base, height, width, a pretty similar shape and is obviously a CC unit. I have 3 different elefants, but all have lancers on top and are all powerlifters. I won't ever mind something like that, but I accept if someone doesn't want me to use it.

And I second vipoid: rule of cool plays a factor and if I see that there was a certain theme being followed, I can live with a lot more divergence

It depends really.
For a random pick up game I'd be OK with someone not running a 100% WYSIWYG list but the non-WYSIWYG stuff would have to all be the same i.e. all Meltaguns are Plasma guns.
For a game against friends, I'd likely be less strict but at the same time I would expect them to not be pricks and cheat.
For a tournament, 100% WYSIWYG. If you have converted something it needs to look like the unit it's being used as and have similar looking wargear, i.e. Ork heads stuck on Terminator bodies being used as Mega Nobz, personally I would say no.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Just as an example from my own collection that I would call one of my better proxies:

I wouldn't tell you not to use it, but I would not be particularly fond of you using that model.

Not because it is a proxy, but because it doesn't look 40kish enough.

I don't really care, unless it's to the point it's confusing.

So, "I have three Devastator squads armed with a variety of weapons. They're all Lascannons," is totally fine.
"I have three Devastator squads armed with a variety of weapons, including one Heavy Bolter in each squad. The Heavy Bolters are Heavy Bolters, everything else is Lascannons," is also good.
But "I have three Devastator squads armed with a variety of weapons. This squad, with two Multi-Meltas and two Grav Cannons, has one Multi-Melta, one Lascannon, one Heavy Bolter, and one Missile Launcher; this squad-" I'd stop them right there and ask them if there was an easier way to handle it.

Likewise, proxies, conversions, or counts-as are fine with me. Proxies and conversions should be thematically similar (so that Powerlifter above gets a pass, because it's clearly close combat and also looks cool), while for counts-as, I actually prefer it to be pretty different from the rest of your army.

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Just as an example from my own collection that I would call one of my better proxies:

I wouldn't tell you not to use it, but I would not be particularly fond of you using that model.

Not because it is a proxy, but because it doesn't look 40kish enough.

Of course, and I would be completely fine with your position and not use it. I think that's what talking before gaming is for.

On that note: how would you (a general you, not just a_typical_hero) see proxies for guardsmen that are 3rd party "baseline humans with rifles", like WW2 soldiers, japanese Ashiguru or (again my personal case) african tribals with guns?

Edit: more specifically: if it is a two handled rifle, but looks like a conventional one, not a lasgun

 Pyroalchi wrote:
As it came up in the T5 Orks threat and I found it rather interesting: how adamant are you about WYSIWYG in the armies of an opponent?

The example was bought up that a player might say something like "you see these guys with the powerswords? For this game they are all wearing powerfist, ok?"

Are you personally ok with this? And where would you draw the line?

Anything goes as long as you are using the right size bases. I'd rather play against 90 blank 32 mm bases than 90 painted Ork Boyz on 25 mm bases with flocking. Painted WYSIWYG armies are cool though, I really appreciate the effort that goes into it, but you gotta update your bases otherwise I don't want to play against you.

In general I prefer to have WYSIWYG on my models but I never mind if my opponent doesn't.

If the opponent says "all the special weapons are Meltas or Plasma" easy day, but I'm not a fan of something confusing where they all are modeled with Flamers for instance and these two squads have plasma, this one is a melta, and this one is an autocannon etc.

I have a lot more sympathy if they're playing with metal models, or a unit who's fun weapon choices can't be made just from the box, Khorne Berserkers with Chain Ax and Chain Swords spring to mind for that one. I'm sure everyone's had a time where they wanted to field something but just lacked the bits for it, or worse a special weapon gets nerfed into the ground and you've already painted 3 squads of them.

As for Proxies, I think it's entirely reasonable to say "I really like this model but it's not [named character] it's just my dude Farseer/Chapter Master/etc." There's also a friend of mine whose teenage son is now playing but has to buy models with his own allowance, he hasn't gotten a Commander Farsight yet but always asks to proxy a Crisis Suit as him instead, I think that's perfectly reasonable.

I will say the people I've met at the store who try to proxy extensively usually do so because a FW item or some obscure model has gotten new and fantastic rules, meta chasing essentially. As a result I never have a burning desire to play a pickup game with them.

I don't mind "all X are Y" and proxies are fine by me. My armies are mostly WYSIWYG with the exception of my forgeworld squiggoth, which I used to use as a battlewagon with the various "melee" upgrades back in 5e like the deffrolla. Never really had any complaints because it was obvious that it was a big transport with some big shootas on it that could mess you up up close.

My armies are built with WYSIWYG in mind. I build lists around the models I decided to build and buy extra models to trade in for other options, so I will collect a few extra squad models each with a different special weapons and maybe a few extra SGT's or the like.
I accept other people wont do the same but try to present a WYSIWYG army as much and as often as I can. If I have a proxy in a unit of other wise identical weapons, the proxy is removed at the first opportunity. Obviously things like grenades and knives don't matter nearly as much as the main weapons the unit is suppose to be kitted with. I don't care to play against armies so far out of WYSIWYG that I don't know what I am looking at as I will continuously have to ask the other play what's what. I will not remember a what's what in a whole army of random proxies and I don't feel anyone should be expected to.
My group is for the most part a WYSIWYG group after 20+ years.

 Pyroalchi wrote:

On that note: how would you (a general you, not just a_typical_hero) see proxies for guardsmen that are 3rd party "baseline humans with rifles", like WW2 soldiers, japanese Ashiguru or (again my personal case) african tribals with guns?

Edit: more specifically: if it is a two handled rifle, but looks like a conventional one, not a lasgun

{shrugs} Lasguns & stubb/autoguns have typically had the same stats in 40k (they've differed in Necromunda & the RPGs iirc) . And I've got old RT era guardsmen wielding autoguns....
So yea, bring n that Bolt Action army.

I play mostly WYSIWYG with the exception of characters. I buy a ton of 3rd party stuff or just make conversions for my characters and have stuff like Tau Cadre Fireblades con heavy machine guns or giant katanas or space marine heroes with two swords or a jump pack and a two handed halberd etc... but most people don't see a problem with it because at the end of the day, characters usually aren't defined by their equipement but by their relics and warlord traits.

A lot of kits don’t have wargear options these days, not compared to what the codex offers.

So if you enforce WYSIWYG then you have to start kitbashing

Isn’t this why GW say you should give your opponent your army list before the game

I always abide by it but I don't care as long as my opponent's army is roughly represented and looks good. The gear on the model should be the gear it has unless it's something like grenades, dispel scrolls, or anything small that doesn't need to be represented. If you can't source bits or convert then change your list.

I like to stick to wysiwyg in my own armies concerning equipment. I've magnetized many Marines to hold whatever gun they can and I'm happy to change their loadout every game. I'm also using a lot of 3rd party models, but it's always recognizable what they are and in some cases like a Chaos Spawn you would be stupid not to search for alternatives.
However it's not on me to judge what my opponents do. I mean I'm playing with friends and the one time our Necron player literally put nothing but bases on the table for his tombblades he got snarky remarks for years to come but concerning equipment, as long as it's consistent and they remember themselves it's all good. One of our Space Wolves players forgot several times which guy in his units he declared as a Sergeant. That's... suboptimal, yes, but he's still a relaxed player and the games with him are fun so whatever. Overall, these details add to the experience that's why I like to stick to them myself, but the game doesn't go down if one squad fires a wrong weapon.

I magnetize because having WYSIWYG is important to me, and for non-magnetized models I play them as they're modeled. But I don't mind anyone else proxying as long as it's consistent or at least made clear to me.

'All the power swords are power fists': Cool, totally fine with me.

'All the power swords are power fists, except the ones on this squad, and all the power fists are actually power axes, unless they're these small ones, in which case...': This gets annoying.

As with anything else behavior matters a lot. I'm going to be upset if a small part of an opponent's army is proxied and they pull a gotcha because I forgot that a heavy bolter is actually a multi-melta and they chose not to remind me when I pulled a tank out in front. But if someone wanted to proxy their entire army as a different army and went to the trouble of making labels for everything, giving me a printout of their list so I can keep track, providing reminders as we play, stuff like that, I'd be totally cool with it.

I guess it comes down to whether it feels like the opponent is respecting the additional cognitive burden they are imposing.