WYSIWYG and aesthetic choices

[Rogue]

Just a pondering, really...

 

I like to play fully painted and WYSIWYG, even in casual games with friends. It's not a hard and fast rule, and there's been proxies at times, but it's broadly WYSIWYG.

 

This week, I was using a ridgerunner. I wanted to play it with the mortar option, but I don't like how the mortar looks. Because I've kept the weapons as push-fit, I can (and did) sub in the missile launcher, as the most aesthetically-pleasing gun (in my opinion). We still played it as a mortar.

 

Here's the thing. If I didn't have a mortar option painted up, then using the missile launcher as a mortar would have felt a bit wrong, like pushing for an advantage I'd not earned. But because I do have the mortar painted, I felt entirely comfortable using the missile launcher model to represent it on the table.

 

This is a very casual setting, and I appreciate that this wouldn't really work in a tournament. And I'm also aware that 'my house, my friend, our rules' over-rides everything else. I just wondered if anyone else ever had the same thoughts - it's okay not to be WSYIWYG if you could have been WSYIWYG (with your opponent's agreement).

[MegaVolt87]

With the state of 40k 10th, I have thrown WYSIWYG right out the window. As long as you are upfront with what is what it's not a problem IMO. 

[Remain_Indoors]

The main thing with all models is that your opponent knows what they are, and it stays consistent. Both of which you did - they knew it was a mortar and it stayed equipped with a mortar, it didnt magicaly become a missile launcher on turn 4.

 

WYSIWYG is no longer part of the rules and with the way GW have treated things like Combi-weapons, doesnt seem to be a priority for them either. As long as your opponent knows whats what, i wouldnt stress about it.

[Karhedron]

Agreed, WYSIWYG is no longer part of the rules. Also GW have officially embraced "counts as" with things like Firstborn SM Bikes counting as Outriders and so forht.

[MARK0SIAN]

I prefer to play wysiwyg if I can but I don’t beat myself up about if I can’t. GW have invalidated several loadouts for my models over the last couple of years and I’m damned if I’m going to cut them up and rebuild/repaint them because GW have suddenly decided the combination of weapons they were built with is no longer allowed. The models in this hobby are too expensive and require too much time investment to worry about making everything wysiwyg.

 

As others have said, so long as it’s clear and consistent what is being proxied then I don’t mind.

[Emperor Ming]

2 hours ago, Rogue said:

I like to play fully painted and WYSIWYG, even in casual games with friends. It's not a hard and fast rule, and there's been proxies at times, but it's broadly WYSIWYG.

Same, but with wargear being free, does WYSIWYG matter anymore

 

A lascannon, same value as a heavy stubber.....that about sums up gws balancing efforts this ed

 

But as the same time: 

[Xenith]

5 minutes ago, Emperor Ming said:

Same, but with wargear being free, does WYSIWYG matter anymore

 

It's more for your opponent, so they don't assume that heavy stubber is actually a heavy stubber and get lascannoned. 

 

There's enough to remember in-game, and with your own army, without having to remember 10 different things that your opponent's models are equipped with, that arent actually on the models. 

[TrawlingCleaner]

9 minutes ago, Xenith said:

 

It's more for your opponent, so they don't assume that heavy stubber is actually a heavy stubber and get lascannoned. 

 

There's enough to remember in-game, and with your own army, without having to remember 10 different things that your opponent's models are equipped with, that arent actually on the models. 

 

Exactly this. When you build your list and you play, you're most likely going to remember that you're proxying equipment but it's very likely your opponent won't remember that.

It gives your opponent a fair chance to appraise where they are in the game without having to constantly ask questions. Is my unit definitely out of range of the models with CCW and flamer or does that unit have bolters and plasma?

 

VS friends, I have no problem with proxying models. We play pretty fast and loose beer and pretzel games, we just remind each other when it comes up

VS other people at a club, I'm always playing with 100% WYSIWYG. I hate "Gotcha"ing people as it removes tactical decision and is just "I didn't disclose this, so now I have an advantage". It's the same with telling my opponent about strats or unit abilites I can use if they were going to do something to trigger it.

 

It's like rolling dice in a clear area of the board where your opponent can see. Full context (like WYSIWYG) all the time in games is less likely to lead to "Gotcha"s and is basic player ettiquette, in my opinion

[Orion]

2 hours ago, Emperor Ming said:

Same, but with wargear being free, does WYSIWYG matter anymore

 

A lascannon, same value as a heavy stubber.....that about sums up gws balancing efforts this ed

 

But as the same time: 

Or WYSIWYG is the only thing keeping diversity in the game.

Just a thought.

[Rogue]

Which was partly my original point. Calling a missile launcher a mortar just because it's the meta option right now feels a bit wrong. (Not cheating, and not (in this context) a gotcha; just a bit wrong.)

 

But having made the effort to have a mortar, even if I then choose to field a different looking model because I prefer it - that feels okay.

 

I guess it's similar to how I could take four of my acolytes with rock saws and say "Those are demo charges today". It's clear and upfront, but feels off. I'd rather wait until I've painted four acolytes with demo charges - then I'll play them.

 

However, the acolyte set only comes with one demo charge model, so I'll likely build a couple with as many grenade arms as I can, and use them as demo charges along the regular models. I could have four demo charges, but again, I'm making an aesthetic decision that won't affect the game at all (and is even less of a change than calling a missile launcher a mortar).

[Xenith]

36 minutes ago, Rogue said:

Calling a missile launcher a mortar just because it's the meta option right now feels a bit wrong.

 

Can you rotate the missile upwards a bit? Ultimately, they're both projectile firing tubes, just on different trajectories. 

[Rogue]

Funnily enough, if I wasn't keeping the weapon options flexible, that's what I would have done - armed them all with the missile launcher, because aside from looking the best, I'd be fairly okay with telling my opponent that in this battle it was firing those missile indirectly, or in this other battle it was firing some souped-up anti-tank missiles (with the exact same profile as a mining laser).

 

And again, personal preference, but I'd feel much happier doing that with the missile launcher than I would if I'd glued the mining laser in place. Because how donI justify a laser weapon firing indirect? I know it's just a game, but if I'm going to proxy weapons, it needs to make sense!

[Xenith]

4 minutes ago, Rogue said:

Because how donI justify a laser weapon firing indirect?

 

Mirrors? Space Mirrors?

[Rain]

I generally try to keep things pretty WYSIWYG, though I like to kitbash. For example I have a dude with a 2 handed chain flail which counts as a Khornate Eviscerator. I don’t think it’s a big deal since there is only 1 melee weapon upgrade option for Zerks, which is the Eviscerator. So any dude with a big two handed melee weapon is a dude with an Eviscerator.

 

I also don’t worry about modeling grenades or holstered pistols on dudes with 2 handed weapons, or dudes that look cooler not holding a pistol. If the only way they come on the profile is with a pistol, it’s assumed to be shoved up their prison pocket if not being held/modeled.

 

Finally, given that all vehicle upgrades are now free, I am okay playing as if all vehicles have all possible upgrades, but the primary weapons still are what they are. For example, a Predator with AC and HB’s still has those guns, but it also has a Havoc Launcher whether or not said HL is modeled.

 

 

[Firedrake Cordova]

For me, the intention of WYSIWYG is to prevent surprise and confusion for those playing (primarily your opponent, but not limited to them as it's possible to forget about your own proxies), so as long as you avoid that, all's well.

 

My general philosophy is that I'll simply pick the models I like the look of, and hopefully they make up an army that might possibly be effective, so it's rare for me to proxy anything. When I have proxied models, I've made a little paper sign to go with it to prevent confusion (e.g. my Forgeworld lascannon/twin plasma Razorback have had a marker saying "I'm a lascannon" with an arrow pointing at the plasma guns, and my assault cannon Razorbacks have had "I'm a heavy bolter" on them before ...).

[nilsh]

I try to build everything according wysiwyg, I get to confused when I need to remember if a perticular weapon is a missile launcher or lascannon.

[Bryan Blaire]

Give your opponent a copy of your army list - it removes any confusion.  Label the squads in some way - my Space Wolves use specific pack markings for their shoulders, it makes it really easy for my opponents to know what a squad has.

 

It’s good sportsmanship whether your models are WYSIWYG or not.

[DemonGSides]

Yeah both people in a game should have copies of the list that people are running, just to be reminded/keep everyone honest.

As long as you're upfront about what's what and there's no chicanery with trying to change what's what, I don't see how anyone could be mad.  You'd have to invalidate a ton of proxy models or non GW models based solely on "Well, it's not TECHNICALLY a lasgun, as Lasguns are from GW." and that's a huge feels bad and no one will like you and rightfully so.

 

Keeping yourself to WYSIWYG is totally fine.  Imposing it on others is where it runs into a bit of dickish-ness; I'm not going to buy every unit multiple times over just to run a specific loadout, so if this Heavy Weapons Guy in a tactical squad is sometimes toting a Las or a Flamer, I'll let you know, and I'll give you my list so you can verify which one it is in this game.  Everyone stays knowledgeable, everyone's on the same page, and there's no room for chicanery unless you're cheating later on.

I almost never look at my models to figure out what they're equipped, because half the time they're over 2 feet away.  My army list and data slates tell me what I'm using (Laminated Data Cards FTW; just mark what ones i'm using (I also printed my own copies of the data sheets, I would NEVER buy GW's printed copies, cuz I can just print of a new one if they ever get substantially modified)) and then I make decisions based on that.

[Rogue]

1 hour ago, DemonGSides said:

Keeping yourself to WYSIWYG is totally fine.  Imposing it on others is where it runs into a bit of dickish-ness;

 

Something similar was talked about in the painting points thread, and I think it's about right - it's not a bad thing to hold yourself to a higher standard than you expect of your opponent.

 

I choose to (mostly) play WYSIWYG, but I don't need to insist my opponent does (within reason and general game-playability). I choose to only use painted models, but don't force my opponent to. 

 

Be generous, cut a little bit of slack.

[DemonGSides]

54 minutes ago, Rogue said:

 

Something similar was talked about in the painting points thread, and I think it's about right - it's not a bad thing to hold yourself to a higher standard than you expect of your opponent.

 

I choose to (mostly) play WYSIWYG, but I don't need to insist my opponent does (within reason and general game-playability). I choose to only use painted models, but don't force my opponent to. 

 

Be generous, cut a little bit of slack.

 

Exactly.  I have a buddy who won't play anything that he hasn't fully finished painting.  It makes for some seriously unoptimized lists since he's relatively new.  That's A-OK!  I just know that I don't need to bring JUST the best units, and gives me a chance to play around with stuff I don't normally use; sometimes that's unpainted since if I"m not using it, why bother.  He's fine with me doing that, because he also believes in holding yourself to standards, but letting others have fun.

It's the way everyone should treat a lot of things.

[Aarik]

I don't put much stock in WYSIWYG after hearing tons of stories on podcasts about high level tournament players using ridiculous proxies at tournaments.  The one example that sticks in my mind the most is someone using a coffee mug in place of an invictor warsuit.

[Emperor Ming]

Removing It could open up a whole new level of tactical depth, 

 

Weapon roulette, is it a heavy stubber or is it a turbo laser, who knows, roll a d6

[Orion]

Or, could take this whole thing further by removing specific weapons.

Just have light, medium, and heavy weapons. Keep them equal for all factions.

Or make units the same for all factions. Wraithguard or Terminator = Same rules.

 

Maybe deployment could be predefined, on a black and white grid pattern board.

[gideon stargreave]

I haven’t played in a long time, but my army is not wysiwyg at all. I would dread playing and having to explain everything so I would end up with really basic suboptimal load outs for expediency 

Eg. this is a

tactical Marne 

[Xenith]

6 hours ago, gideon stargreave said:

I haven’t played in a long time, but my army is not wysiwyg at all. I would dread playing and having to explain everything so I would end up with really basic suboptimal load outs for expediency 

Eg. this is a

tactical Marne 

 

I think in this instance, you should try and allocate the awesome models you've built, to units that at least reflect what they're armed with - so assault intercessor sergeant, vanguard vet on foot, captain.

 

Using a unit of dudes with power and chainfists on 40mm bases and saying that they're tactical marines might be ok for one game, but it's confusing.