WYSIWYG and count as

[landoro]

Hello.

I usually buy models because of how they look, if I dont like the model I dont buy or use it. For example the Stormraven, I dont like the look of it so I am not going to buy it, however I would likee to use it ruleswise, I think flyers are cool.

What I would like to do is to buy a Valkyrie and paint it to match my army (I use black and greeen) and have it count as a Stormraven since I really like the model for the Valkyrie

This is also true about the psycannons vs psilencers, i relly like the look of the psilencers but not the new psycannons, could i use psilencers count as psycannons perhaps? I also really like the fachions on terminators so might models some of those also, but them I can pin and change if some body argues.

For GW it should not matter, I buy their models so they get paid, but players are strange, how would you react about these things, something you would not allow me to do?

Have fun

Landoro

[shortysl]

I wouldn't have a problem with you using a Valkyrie as a Stormraven as long as it was modelled and painted appropriately and didn't just look like a bog standard Valkyrie. I WOULD have a problem with you using Psilencers as Psycannons though; they're both Grey Knight weapons and there's a reason that they look different from each other. All of this is my opinion though, make of it what you will.

[number6]

I would say you'd have to do something to distinguish your valkyrie from other valkyries. Before the stormraven kit, many Blood Angels players use the valk as the starting point of their stormraven conversions, but those conversions didn't end up looking like a valkyrie.

 

And I also agree that you can't just sub psilincers for psycannons. They're distinct for a reason.

[Gentlemanloser]

If it's a tournament, speak to the TO. They might be very strict on WYSIWYG.

 

Personally, in the group I play with, we're *very* lenient. Folk like to model thier mini's a specific way, asthetics a driving factor. And if (for example only) you model all your GK using Swords (becuase you prefer the look), but pay the points for Halberds, as long as you let us know they're Halberds, it's all good with us.

[Something Wycked]

If it's a tournament, speak to the TO. They might be very strict on WYSIWYG.

 

Personally, in the group I play with, we're *very* lenient. Folk like to model thier mini's a specific way, asthetics a driving factor. And if (for example only) you model all your GK using Swords (becuase you prefer the look), but pay the points for Halberds, as long as you let us know they're Halberds, it's all good with us.

Exactly my answer :) :P

[ValourousHeart]

I take the RAI view of WYSIWYG.

The intention is to prevent players from cheating.

"I thought you said those ML were lascanons. No those ML over there are lascanons, these ML are MM. You can tell by how close they are to your tanks."

 

I prefer the look of the plasma pistols that came with the old assault marines better than the look of a standard bolt pistol.

So I modeled all of my bikes with the plasma pistol bit.... For the look of it.

But I also don't use any plasma pistols in my lists... So there is never a conflict.

 

You shouldn't have an issue with the bits you use as long as you are not using the same bit to represent two different items in the same list.

[Selleck]

I am sorry, but I am really for WYSIWYG!

 

But at the same time, if you want to use a Valkyrie instead of a Stormraven, no problem with it, AS LONG as you have modeled the Valkyrie with the right weapons and layout.

 

It really annoys me when people got an entire army modeled with wrong weapons "...because I like the look of it...". When playing a fun game with a friend, and there is a couple of models with a chainsword instead of a powersword, or the Dreadnought got a lascannon instead of a autocannon, no problems. But when the entire army got a different layout than what is played, I really bugs me!

 

If you use a Sisters of Battle model, to count as your captain ... no problems with as long as you try to get the weapons right. You want to use a Imperial guard as your Inquisitor ... no problems, if the model got about the right weapons. I can even, in a pinch, accept Whirlwind as razorbacks, for the friendly game.

 

But when you start to play scouts as terminators, and rhinos as landraiders, then I have a problem, and it downgrade the game-feeling, and my desire to play with the opponent again.

[Jimmy Carmine]

Ha ha, you picked the wrong question to seek consensus on. :lol: You aren't going to get a solid answer from the forums here so the questions you need to be asking yourself are:

 

Are you planning on playing in any tournaments with this army. If the answer is yes then you are going to want to stick to WYSIWYG here and completely avoid psilencers count as psycannons.

 

If you aren't playing in tournaments then the only opinions that matter is those of your friends you will be playing against. If they are not keen on the idea of this then avoid it, there's no point paying all that money and spending all that time on an army you can't use.

[The Holy Heretic]

They're distinct for a reason.

 

Sure they are - but I think, you've misunderstood the reasoning.

 

Modelwise, they're distinct to allow hobbyist choice and variation in their modelling.

 

Playwise, they're distinct to allow you to distinguish between models with varying loadouts. How a gun is actually model has absolutely no impact on the way, they play. They aren't about to come alive and spew flames and ammo rounds about the place, while making pew pew noises.

 

By now its common for people to bring up the "fluff argument": if it ain't lookin' like a melta (like illustrated in the books), it ain't no melta. But the imperium spans across countless worlds -> countless weapons factories -> countless weapon designs - just take a look at an M4 and a G36, they fire the same ammo, but look nothing like each other, and thats just on one planet.

 

The hobby is about cool models, not going anal about whether people bought 'the proper' bits :lol:

[nurglez]

I converted my psycannon's from psilancers with chaos gargoyle barrels attached. Though I have only 6 of them in my force and tell everyone they are psycannons. I've had no problem with people saying they arent what they should be.

 

I wouldn't mind psilancers as psycannon's, however if you also used some as actual psilancers, that would get rather confusing...

 

As mentioned above, it depends on if you are aiming to attend tournaments or not, as these tend to be stricter on wysiwyg.

[Raving Bonkers]

I have no problem with 'counts as' as long as its the same across the board for the whole army. A perfect example was when I used my wolves. All my terminators, built to look good and have a purpose. But in an apoc match I wanted to field all 40 of them. To save points and confusions I was aloud to say they all counted as Storm Bolters and Power Weapons, even I wasn't prepared to remember a few single models equipped differently so why should I expect my opponents to. As long as its simple and easy to remember.

 

Valk as Stormraven, I would be fine with. I agree the Valk looks so much nicer than a storm raven. At the end of the day if I saw one in a marine army, there is only one thing it could be, just as long as weapons match up so your opponent can know what it has at a glance.

 

Really though you need to ask the guys you will be facing, especially when your opponent may be unfamiliar with your army.

[number6]

They're distinct for a reason.

The hobby is about cool models, not going anal about whether people bought 'the proper' bits :tu:

Heh. I'm just saying: I don't actually think it's fair or sporting to say that psilencers count as psycannons on any GK model. Why? Because everybody knows the difference, model-wise, and I actually think it's unsporting to demand that people remember -- just for "this unit" or "this army" -- that what looks like psilencers actually aren't. That goes beyond an opinion on aethetics and crosses the line into "modeling for advantage" territory.

 

I just don't think that's a fair use of "conversion for appearance". You're going beyond "counts as" and are going well into "confusion", which isn't sporting.

 

It'd be a different matter entirely if, for example, you wanted to use psilencers on your tau battlesuits to represent missile pods, say. Or on your orks to represent big shootas. The difference in these examples is that neither army is GK, and it's clear that neither army would have psilencers, and therefore asking for a conversions "counts as" in these cases in no way could cause any confusion.

[Something Wycked]

I just don't think that's a fair use of "conversion for appearance". You're going beyond "counts as" and are going well into "confusion", which isn't sporting.

I would disagree; if there are no actual Psilencers or normally modeled Psycannons in the army, and the statement "all Psilencers are Psycannons" is true, then there shouldn't be anything confusing about that and there exists no modeling for advantage. All it takes is one pre-game statement: "I've modeled all of my Psycannons with the Psilencer bits- I have no Psilencers in the army."

 

Of course, WYSIWYG is one of the most contentious things in this hobby, so I'd be surprised if we could get anything resembling a majority opinion :P Chalk it up to YMMV and talk to your gaming buddies- the people you'll actually be playing.

[The Holy Heretic]

They're distinct for a reason.

The hobby is about cool models, not going anal about whether people bought 'the proper' bits :)

I just don't think that's a fair use of "conversion for appearance". You're going beyond "counts as" and are going well into "confusion", which isn't sporting.

 

This will sound arrogant and rude, so sorry in advance :P

 

But if you lack the ability to abstract from a 'psycannon' looking like a 'psilencer', then I do believe you suffer from some slight dysfunction like aspergers - which isn't uncommon among wargamers.

 

Of course, if the modelling really is confusing - like using psycannons to represent various things - then you have a point, and then you should just overlook my comments. But lets be frank, if you see a non-stormbolter armed grey knight, then 99999/100000 times the army list will state that it is a psycannon :nuke:

 

Take the most extreme example of modeling whackiness, I know: http://www.wargamerau.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=92572

 

You have no chance in a frozen hell to guess what they're armed with, even what they represent ruleswise from their models, but refusing to play a cool army, with as much thought and effort in it like this one, would be just silly :)

[Something Wycked]

But if you lack the ability to abstract from a 'psycannon' looking like a 'psilencer', then I do believe you suffer from some slight dysfunction like aspergers - which isn't uncommon among wargamers.

I've not been officially diagnosed, but I've self-tested fairly positive for Aspbergers and I have no issue here :nuke:

[ValourousHeart]

Because everybody knows the difference, model-wise, and I actually think it's unsporting to demand that people remember

 

That is a bold statement claiming that EVERYBODY knows the difference model wise.

Only in context do I know that you are referring to GK weapons... But you are asserting that EVERYONE, even those that don't play GK, knows what those bits represent.

From that point of view it is not hard to think that you mean EVERYBODY knows EVERY BIT for EVERY ARMY, just because you do.

I don't know about EVERYBODY else... but I have a life, a wife and family, and a job... and I have no interest in committing every bit and stat line to memory.

 

I also don't play most of the armies out there, I only play sisters and ravenwing, not Dark Angels... ravenwing.

I couldn't tell you without looking it up what options a predator has... or the stat line for a Whirlwind missile... and both of those are in one of my codex, but they are not units that I use, so I don't know.

But as part of EVERYBODY I am supposed to know what tyranid bits are supposed to represent?

Tau bits?

Dark Eldar bits?

Or even what other marines armies have for options, that are not available to DA?

 

Another point is that I know plenty of people that use Predators and Razorbacks interchangeably... and the reason for that is because they want to save money.

The turrets are noticeably different, but without the side guns, there isn't a big difference in what the models look like... but there is a big difference in the rules for the two tanks.

Your comments would indicate that you would low ball a sportsmanship score on an opponent at a tournament because they used predators instead of razorbacks.

 

If I miss understood you and you don't have a problem with the Predator / Razorback swap... why do you have a problem with a psycannon / psylancer swap?

[Gentlemanloser]

Well, this thing *can* be a nightmare to play against.

 

Me: "Right, I assault that unit of GK over there, I've got FC and roll to hit."

You: "Er, no. These Sword weilding GKs actually have NFH, I got first."

Me: "Gahh!!! If I'd have known that, I would have assaulted that unit of Warrior Accolytes over there instead!"

You: "But I told you at the start of the fight mate."

Me: "Yeah, it's turn 5. That was like 2 hours ago..."

 

But these sort of situations can be easily remidied by something like the following;

 

You: "Heh, NP dude, take that assault move back and charge the Warriors."

Me: "Sweet, thanks mate."

 

:)

[ValourousHeart]

You are right and that is how I would play it.

 

But then there is a other side of the coin.... which I thought you were on.

 

Me: I am going to shoot your land raider with my psycannons.

You: those aren't psycannons on your figures they are psylancers... they can't hurt a land raider.

Me: but here is my army list, I bought psycannons, see.

You: ah, but if you look here at the picture in your codex it says that that bit is a psylancer, not a psycannon.

Me: But...

You: Hey if you want we can get a judge to make the call, but this is a WYSIWYG tournament run by my college room mate... so I think he is going to side with me.

 

Glad to see I was wrong... and even more glad to see we are both forgiving players.

 

But I am curious about a modeling idea I had... Facions... but using one NFS and one NFF... looking samurai style.

Good to go or not?

[Gentlemanloser]

I say awesome!

 

(I built a Strike using left over bits and he's holding a single NFF behind his back instead of a Forcesword. :))

 

Edit: (Rules and fluff for the Nemesis weapons seems, disjointed, anyway. The NFH is 2 handed, but the NFS isn't? Why even bother lableling the NFH as 2 Handed, when the *sole* reason we use wrist mounted stomr bolters is to leave us both hands free to swing our weapons. In 6th, we best be able to use our SB as second CCW alongside 2H weapons...)

[number6]

Me: I am going to shoot your land raider with my psycannons.

You: those aren't psycannons on your figures they are psylancers... they can't hurt a land raider.

Me: but here is my army list, I bought psycannons, see.

You: ah, but if you look here at the picture in your codex it says that that bit is a psylancer, not a psycannon.

Me: But...

You: Hey if you want we can get a judge to make the call, but this is a WYSIWYG tournament run by my college room mate... so I think he is going to side with me.

I'm just saying, in my experience playing in tournaments, that is EXACTLY what would happen. A player who is making the psilencer-for-psycannon swap should expect it.

 

Anywho, no need to get to techy, ValourousHeart. But these days, GKs are a fairly popular army. And most GK opponents are going to be able to recognize the difference between a psycannon and a psilencer just by looking at it. Just like they can distinguish between a flamer and a melta gun just by looking at it.

 

If the person wanting to make this particular "counts as" conversion isn't playing competitively, and is sticking with a bunch of friends, more power to you.

 

But I maintain -- all IMHO, you know :) -- that outside of those comfy confines, this kind of conversion will cause more grief than I think the OP might be expecting. And therefore, it wouldn't be worth it.

[The Holy Heretic]

Personally I'd gladly take a dive in a tournament, if someone made a fuss about this. Better that than play a game vs. (what I would perceive as) an anal retard that could only spoil the mood, pulling a childish stunt like this. My models, my money, my time, my fun :P

 

Luckily I've never attended a tournament with people like this - a few borderline, but they got hammered in place by the general laidback mood. I personally have my warrior acolytes equipped with 'experimental electronic pulse rifles' (storm bolters), as I invested quite heavily in DKOK grenadiers as Stormtroopers back in the Daemonhunter days and see no reason to ruin perfectly good models with a nice paint job :P

 

--

 

Greatest example, I heard of, goes like this:

 

Player1 - So my glade guards shoot your..

 

Player2 - your glade guard doesn't have bowstrings on, so they can't fire.

 

Player1 - Oh dang! You're right. Sorry about that.

 

Turn shifts..

 

Player2 - So my steam tank generates 6 points of steam..

 

Player1 - Wait a sec.. That lever has been glued on wrong, so your steam tank can't generate steam.

 

Player2 - Oh dang! You're right. Sorry about that.

 

- Kudos to these guys for their devotion to 'correct' modelling and taking the consequences. But imagine having painstakingly converted a Grey Knight changing mags on his storm bolter and then being denied firing - cuz' the model is clearly out of ammo :P

[RedemptionNL]

I've magnatized all the heavy weapons on the terminator armoured models, so I can swap between an incinerator, psycannor or psilencer. As I never use actual psilencers in my army lists for obvious reasons, I use the psilencer bit to represent a master-crafted psycannon.

 

I have never run into anyone that made a problem out of it, but in the case of someone that does, I'll just put a psycannon bit on it. :D I've scraped the skull of the side a few psycannons and replaced them with purity seals, so I can always use that to represent master-crafted if needed.

[Arikel]

I think it would be okay for non competitive gaming, though I myself wouldn't do it, and think it's a somewhat confusing thing to do. If a weapon has an official bit for your army, you should either use that bit or model your own, or convert another weapon from a different army or range, but you should not use an official bit from your own army that represents another weapon to replace it with, without any conversion at all. It's just asking for trouble at any kind of tournament.

 

In the same vein, a person using a predator as a razorback, on a regular basis and not the occasional proxy, is being either a) cheap (which i can understand) or :lol: Lazy (which i can also understand), which is alright but still meh at best.

 

It's not that either of these things are awful or a gamebreaker, they just don't feel right, don't feel classy, I suppose. On the other hand a person's army is their army but you won't be able to stop a lot of bad feeling for that kind of wysiwyyg breach.