Modelling, WYSIWYG and reduction in options

[The Spitehorde]

1 hour ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

My humble Opinion is WYSIWYG is very important because I'm a visual kinda guy; and even if someone tells me something, if I see it later, I will likely forget what they said.

 

I know where you're coming from. 

 

My brain is pretty much hardwired to WYSIWYG. If a model has a plasma pistol, it has a plasma pistol. If it has a whopping great big double handed chainsword it has a whopping great big double handed chainsword. My opponent knows immediately what the model has, and so do I. That saves time. I don't have to ask them what their models have on a turn-by-turn basis, and they don't have to do the same to me...

 

 

[Kallas]

19 hours ago, Eilio Tiberius said:

I'm sure in some meeting of the minds, GW has figured out this will be more profitable for them.

Less available options for conversions, means people are forced to buy more kits; less spares left over means people are forced to buy more kits.

 

GW has been moving away from consumer friendly decisions for a long time, and even their attempts at some consumer friendly things like free 10e Core rules and Indexes are severely undercut by the faction rules and App becoming paywalled (yes, yes, it was stated beforehand, but it's still a poor decision).

[Blindhamster]

3 hours ago, Kallas said:

Less available options for conversions, means people are forced to buy more kits; less spares left over means people are forced to buy more kits.

 

GW has been moving away from consumer friendly decisions for a long time, and even their attempts at some consumer friendly things like free 10e Core rules and Indexes are severely undercut by the faction rules and App becoming paywalled (yes, yes, it was stated beforehand, but it's still a poor decision).

 

GW are very clearly moving toward models that will allow them to stay in business longer term, its why they have subscription stuff and why they are so much more invested in merchandising now than they once were and why there's a bunch of computer games coming too.

Lets face it, with the consumer grade 3D printers improving as much as they are, it really isn't likely to be all that long before their model of selling models will stop being viable.

[DemonGSides]

20 hours ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

My humble Opinion is WYSIWYG is very important because I'm a visual kinda guy; and even if someone tells me something, if I see it later, I will likely forget what they said.

For example, I will never take a squad with visible Plasma pistols with Chainswords or flamers, and say they are all Bolt pistols and Chainswords. In holsters, pistols can be anything; in hand, it's WYSISWG for me.

 

This only works for factions where you've got borderline encyclopedic knowledge.

My Elder buddy can tell me any gun is whatever gun because I honestly have no idea.  Same with Tyranids.  Necrons are pretty close as well, though their guns are a bit more discernible.

It's a marines problem.

[Interrogator Stobz]

Yep, and it's a pita constantly asking Nids players what bio-thing they're shooting now.

I'll not make that worse.

[Orion]

4 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

 

This only works for factions where you've got borderline encyclopedic knowledge.

My Elder buddy can tell me any gun is whatever gun because I honestly have no idea.  Same with Tyranids.  Necrons are pretty close as well, though their guns are a bit more discernible.

It's a marines problem.

I dunno. I honestly get surprised that people don't have a cursory knowledge of other faction's weapons. At least ones that have been around for eons, like Eldar.

I've never collected them but can definitely tell the difference between a Star Cannon, D cannon, Multi Laser, Bright Lance, Missile Launcher, Shuriken Cannon etc. And I have a general idea as to what class of weapon they are, even if I might not know the specific rules.

[Blindhamster]

2 hours ago, JayJapanB said:

I dunno. I honestly get surprised that people don't have a cursory knowledge of other faction's weapons. At least ones that have been around for eons, like Eldar.

I've never collected them but can definitely tell the difference between a Star Cannon, D cannon, Multi Laser, Bright Lance, Missile Launcher, Shuriken Cannon etc. And I have a general idea as to what class of weapon they are, even if I might not know the specific rules.

I could do it for eldar, probably tau and imperial factions. Couldn't tell you the names of things for nids (though I'll learn now my son plays them) or necrons, or chaos when it isnt a direct copy of the imperial weapon.

 

Can probably do it for oks as well actually

Edited September 24, 2023 by Blindhamster

[Noserenda]

Heh, any gun added from 6th ed onwards is implicitly a mystery to me but i had that encyclopaedic knowledge once... *terrible musical starts**

I dont think its any grand conspiracy on GWs part though, its the tyranny of sprue space with the bigger scale and the general shift toward repeating 5 model batches rather than a sprawling frame set that gives a little more room for odds and ends. Id definitely rather have more toys but its a zero sum game unfortunately, just like the Dorn's under carriage and apparently the internet wants more consistency over options.

[MegaVolt87]

It's basically the value of WYSIWYG in 40k, at a time of pts that are power level, combined weapons profiles (eg. SM combi's) and a move to fixed box loadouts (kits+rules). I think people should be fine with looser WYSIWYG in 40k as GW increasingly does not respect the time and money you put into your models with how they change the game so much and often throw the baby out with the bath water if a part is particularly broken or problematic. Just have a conversation about what is what, and have patience with an opponent who asks what is what every 5-10 mins because they can't comprehend your more esoteric creations and conversions. 

[Orion]

These discussions always hit this weird point of intent.

 

To my understanding you can't use proxies in tournaments, and I don't see that changing any time soon.
 

So what is the goal here?

Is it like running a Commissar model with a las pistol, as counting as an option he actually has on his datasheet? (bolt pistol)

Or is it running every squad with plasma/powersword sergeants, because "It's just better and free, so I deserve it"

 

The latter of which feels like an odd thing to chase, when presumably you're playing in a casual setting.

People apparently find it hard enough to say they want a legends unit in their army, why is widespread proxying seen as an easier hurdle? 

[MegaVolt87]

1 hour ago, JayJapanB said:

These discussions always hit this weird point of intent.

 

To my understanding you can't use proxies in tournaments, and I don't see that changing any time soon.
 

So what is the goal here?

Is it like running a Commissar model with a las pistol, as counting as an option he actually has on his datasheet? (bolt pistol)

Or is it running every squad with plasma/powersword sergeants, because "It's just better and free, so I deserve it"

 

The latter of which feels like an odd thing to chase, when presumably you're playing in a casual setting.

People apparently find it hard enough to say they want a legends unit in their army, why is widespread proxying seen as an easier hurdle? 

 

WYSIWYG for 40k has always been an institution, but its relevance is being bought into question as time passes and GW's action up to now. Your las pistol commissar as bolt pistol is a proxy, the SM sarge example is also a proxy, or mabye a conversion to proxy. No one sane will begrudge you for the commisar pistol example, but the SM sarge will require more explaining. If you have different swords types as power fists, others as swords because of homebrew. Or, SM sarge guy has a legacy collection and plasma pistol + sword was a good choice where its on, but doesn't want to spend the money on updating painted units, so proxies. 

 

Part of WYSIWYG, we had granular options and this made people invested. Power level pts eroded this greatly. The treadmill of model churn was more palatable when we had more options to build for. Moving to box loadouts and pts being the assumption you pick the OP loadout,  its a combination of being tired of the churn and still wanting to play with existing models. I think future tourny's will have to relax WYSIWYG requirements for good attendance. WYSIWYG in HH, is defended far more vigorously, because there are options with clear distinctions reflected in granular points costs. No real hard limits based on box contents (eg - terminators, you are not locked into x2 power swords max etc). 

 

Proxies/ conversions are based on an active ruleset that gets updated, 40k Legends are not and are a separate issue entirely to this discussion. 

 

 

[Orion]

31 minutes ago, MegaVolt87 said:

 

WYSIWYG for 40k has always been an institution, but its relevance is being bought into question as time passes and GW's action up to now. Your las pistol commissar as bolt pistol is a proxy, the SM sarge example is also a proxy, or mabye a conversion to proxy. No one sane will begrudge you for the commisar pistol example, but the SM sarge will require more explaining. If you have different swords types as power fists, others as swords because of homebrew. Or, SM sarge guy has a legacy collection and plasma pistol + sword was a good choice where its on, but doesn't want to spend the money on updating painted units, so proxies. 

 

Part of WYSIWYG, we had granular options and this made people invested. Power level pts eroded this greatly. The treadmill of model churn was more palatable when we had more options to build for. Moving to box loadouts and pts being the assumption you pick the OP loadout,  its a combination of being tired of the churn and still wanting to play with existing models. I think future tourny's will have to relax WYSIWYG requirements for good attendance. WYSIWYG in HH, is defended far more vigorously, because there are options with clear distinctions reflected in granular points costs. No real hard limits based on box contents (eg - terminators, you are not locked into x2 power swords max etc). 

 

Proxies/ conversions are based on an active ruleset that gets updated, 40k Legends are not and are a separate issue entirely to this discussion. 

 

 

I don't know if that really answers my question. 

Do you proxy because that's key to beating the person you're playing with?

Or do you proxy because a loadout is categorically no longer valid in the ruleset?

 

Also I don't think the legends comparison is invalid. As it stands both require permission. That was my point, the social interaction, not whether or not it relates to balance. I mean this entire discussion is hinged on social interaction in the hobby. 

[MegaVolt87]

19 minutes ago, JayJapanB said:

I don't know if that really answers my question. 

Do you proxy because that's key to beating the person you're playing with?

Or do you proxy because a loadout is categorically no longer valid in the ruleset?

 

Also I don't think the legends comparison is invalid. As it stands both require permission. That was my point, the social interaction, not whether or not it relates to balance. I mean this entire discussion is hinged on social interaction in the hobby. 

 

"Do you proxy because that's key to beating the person you're playing with?"- Some WAAC players do this, regardless of edition. Been on the receiving end plenty of times, but lack of opponents and desire of a game makes you put up with it.

 

"Or do you proxy because a loadout is categorically no longer valid in the ruleset?" Thats a yes, which you could infer from my post but to make it clear- yes and the other points apply.

 

Its easier to represent best practice by making an example via yourself than try to change people's behaviour directly- practice what you preach to the letter has a far greater influence on others behaviour.  I don't proxy and I abide by WYSIWYG, I still uphold my standards but have become more sympathetic on why others don't care as much for WYSIWYG anymore, from already mentioned points in my other posts. 

 

As far as the social interaction, legends and conversions permissions you are more likely to get the ok for counts as conversions based on the current + supported rules vs legends/ legacy models no longer receiving updates or real balance. As far as proxies, even more so as people want to use what they paid for already. Like your commissar example etc, inter army proxies are easily cleared up with a discussion. 

 

 

[Orion]

17 minutes ago, MegaVolt87 said:

 

"Do you proxy because that's key to beating the person you're playing with?"- Some WAAC players do this, regardless of edition. Been on the receiving end plenty of times, but lack of opponents and desire of a game makes you put up with it.

 

"Or do you proxy because a loadout is categorically no longer valid in the ruleset?" Thats a yes, which you could infer from my post but to make it clear- yes and the other points apply.

 

Its easier to represent best practice by making an example via yourself than try to change people's behaviour directly- practice what you preach to the letter has a far greater influence on others behaviour.  I don't proxy and I abide by WYSIWYG, I still uphold my standards but have become more sympathetic on why others don't care as much for WYSIWYG anymore, from already mentioned points in my other posts. 

 

As far as the social interaction, legends and conversions permissions you are more likely to get the ok for counts as conversions based on the current + supported rules vs legends/ legacy models no longer receiving updates or real balance. As far as proxies, even more so as people want to use what they paid for already. Like your commissar example etc, inter army proxies are easily cleared up with a discussion. 

 

 

I agree on pretty much all of that. 

I'd rather use legends rules than proxying though, regardless of whether that filters out opponents.

Legends already received an update, and hopefully some notable missing units get added in.

[Evil Eye]

I'm personally all for WYSIWYG. It's just a matter of courtesy and respect (on both sides) for me; having your models built with the weapons they're listed as having is less confusing for all parties. Now, with upgrades that aren't "visual" (for example, veteran skills on a Marine) or are so small that at tabletop distance it's easy to not notice them (toxin sacs on Hormagaunts) I think much more leeway can be given, even if I personally would always model the latter on just to make things clear. Likewise, conversions that count as a particular option where it's clear what they're representing are fine; if someone's made an Ironclad Dreadnought with a demolition flail to represent as a seismic hammer that's cool. But when it's things like "this laspistol is actually a plasma pistol" I think it's a bit more iffy and detracts from the immersion factor of the game.

As for the reduction of options, I really don't care for it. There are cases where it was needed; Plague Marines really didn't need the degree of granularity with melee weapons they had in 8th and 9th. Plague knives, plague weapons and great plagues weapons are fine. However, when you have stuff like combi-weapons all getting abstracted together, units losing almost all their options, and everything being exacerbated by the removal of points for wargear, it really does seem like a colossal step in the wrong direction. It's also not helped by every single unit's weapons being "bespoke" rather than just selecting from a preset armoury, thus ironically making confusion with weapon options even greater. Before when a power fist was a power fist things were far easier to understand. Now every single weapon has its own unique profile, it's a lot more likely to result in "hang on, what does that do?" moments.

 

Unfortunately I don't think there's a lot that can be done short of just not playing 10th, as GW have committed themselves to this trainwreck of a ruleset.