How strict is Wysiwyg?

[InSaint]

Can anyone share their tournament experiences on how strict TO are usually with Wysiwyg ruling. Or is it really up to how gracious your opponents are. 

Of course unit proxy with different bases or blatantly wrong model is a straight no no but how about the following? 

1) Units with varying weapons configuration. I don't expect people to exactly model the weapons played because of looks and flexibility of use. Personally I am fine if opponents clarify at start of game what weapons they are carrying.

2) Treatment of standard bearers and musicians. I understand some are very fragile and people may or may not build them for convenience and flexibility of use. I have also seen several major event finals live on twitch with squads blatantly w/o banner and still get to enjoy the banner ability.

3) Conversions, kit bash or models with mixed parts of different units. Many kits allow for dual design, people often get creative and mix them up abit.

4) In faction similar units proxies. Like Morrsarr VS Ishlaen Guards or Khinerai Heartrenders VS Heaetseekers. TBH, they just look the same on tabletop.

[svnvaldez]

100% depends on the tournament / to.

I have played in events where 1) everything needs to be correct or they are removed as dead models to 2) events that players have been allowed to use non GW models that look nothing like what they are suppose to be.

Bases always have to be correct however or I would refuse to play.

[Overread]

Its up to the TO and its best to ask them specifically before the event so that they can give you a clear answer - if you are using non-standard models or non-wysiwyg take photos and confirm before. If you cannot then take a force that you are able to change to pure wysiwyg so that if they say no you can fall back on a functional army.

 

1) Honestly in a Tournament people will expect primary weapons to be modelled correctly. In AoS possibly even more so because weapon variation is somewhat far less for the vast majority of models in the range; and because with most units* don't pay any points to arm themselves differently. So yes it cuts down on your ability to change your army on the fly, but at the same time most models don't have a vast wealth of options to pick from to start with and primary weapons are one of the core components of WYSIWYG. For most AoS armies its not practical to magnetize the weapon arms (you can magnetize anything but below a certain point its more work than its worth for most people); whilst in 40K several armies are more adaptable to magnet use (eg Tyranids)

2) This is an area I wish GW would take back to the Old World approach. If just because having units of 30 warriors with 3 standards and 3 musicians looks freaking odd; and especially when they keep leader models to 1 per unit already. In theory because you can remove the wounded you can just leave the banner and musician to the last ones to remove. This is a tricky one because my personal gut feeling is to only model 1 of each support per full unit - so whilst its perfectly legal to have 3 in most units I'd only have 1 banner and 1 musician. I just think it looks right. I also think the rule might change one day so I feel I'm part future proofing myself and will most times remove other models and if my support is sniped out will take that loss - this is a personal view and others might differ in their opinion.

3) For most duel kits the primary weapons are often the key difference. So mixing and matching the armour/heads/legs/bodies isn't an issue because the model is still clearly what it is and the primary weapon shows what it is armed with. This links back to point 1 - primary weapons are the cornerstone of the concept. So if you've got Daughters of Khaine where you've mixed the parts up it will be the daggers or whips which show if they are Witch Aelves or Sisters of Slaughter more so than if they've got metal helms or long wavy hair. 
Note the more you convert and move away from the original model and parts the more the key weapon becomes important. 

4) When it comes to conversions in general or even using proxy or 3rd party models etc.. Then its sometimes a more holistic view on the whole army. EG if each unit is clear, distinct and easily identifiable as to what it is and what it is armed with then most will be fine to allow it. Issues arise if you've modelled units to look like other units in the force or if they are all very similar etc.... Ergo if there is no clear clarity.
Note if using alternative models or parts from another company you might not be accepted into any GW Store Tournament event. Parts you can be alright on and a single 3rd party model might slip in here and there; but in general you have to stick to GW models  and 3rd party parts here and there (things like bases are very openly accepted whilst things like legs/arms/heads etc.... slightly less so. The rule is somewhat biased to the models. 

 

Clarity is the key with WYSIWYG - its about an opponent being able to tell which unit is which; which model is what and what they are armed with. 

 

*including several cases where GW has given the model two profiles and warscroll cards where they still share the same points

[Carnelian]

For me wysiwyg is a yes / no thing. 

Either it is wysiwyg or it's not. 

If someone says an army is wysiwyg then I would expect no proxies/no armaments/no models to be anything other than what is modelled on the table in front of me. 

[XReN]

On our local tournaments it's usually WYSIWYG, no proxies allowed, round bases of correct size, you can bring squares, conversions, non-gw models, but you have to verify them with TO. 

In our community such things as wysiwyg weapons and command group percieved as given by most players - you are expected to have those after some time in hobby. 

[Wraith01]

Literal.

 

as in: What You See Is What You Get. 

[michu]

I think there are corner cases and exceptions - for example Lord of Plagues have an axe, but as its warscroll names the weapon "Great Blade" I think there wouldn't be a problem if someone convert him to wield a scythe. 

[SwampHeart]

15 hours ago, InSaint said:

1) Units with varying weapons configuration. I don't expect people to exactly model the weapons played because of looks and flexibility of use. Personally I am fine if opponents clarify at start of game what weapons they are carrying.

As a TO this is a no go for my events (granted I run small FLGS events). Additionally as a player at a tournament this would be a no go. If your unit is supposed to have hammers and great maces it should be modeled as such. I like to think my opponents are good people who wouldn't try to gain an advantage from this but unfortunately I've had this not be true. 

 

15 hours ago, InSaint said:

2) Treatment of standard bearers and musicians. I understand some are very fragile and people may or may not build them for convenience and flexibility of use. I have also seen several major event finals live on twitch with squads blatantly w/o banner and still get to enjoy the banner ability.

Same as above - must be represented in the unit. First, having these models on the table represents an element of correct game play - the removal of casualties. If you have your standard bearer or musician in such a place as to where you'd either have to remove them or lose unit coherency that's a choice you've made. You have to be cognizant of that during game play. Second it should be easy for your opponent to identify what is in a given unit at a glance - I shouldn't have to ask each turn which unit has which options. 
 

15 hours ago, InSaint said:

3) Conversions, kit bash or models with mixed parts of different units. Many kits allow for dual design, people often get creative and mix them up abit.

As long as the options you're using on the table are represented I'm fine. I've played against Ungors with Spears and bows on their back so they can be used as raiders or ungors before. Again the key is I need to be able to look at the table - at a glance - and accurately identify what you're fielding. 

 

15 hours ago, InSaint said:

4) In faction similar units proxies. Like Morrsarr VS Ishlaen Guards or Khinerai Heartrenders VS Heaetseekers. TBH, they just look the same on tabletop.

Absolutely not - if you've got Ishlaen on the table they're Ishlaen Guard. This is far too easy to be used for advantage, especially against an opponent who doesn't know better. 

[ChaosLord]

Something I've noticed with some kits is that they don't include enough parts to have a standard and musician if you split the unit in two. Take Mighty Skullcrushers for example. Units are in multiples of 3, but the kit has six models and only one banner and one horn. It's legal to run two units of three while also having a banner and horn in each. So what, someone has to buy $200 worth of kits to get 3+3 properly outfitted?

[SwampHeart]

50 minutes ago, ChaosLord said:

So what, someone has to buy $200 worth of kits to get 3+3 properly outfitted?

Or use Bits sellers on eBay, or just left over bits from other kits with extras? 

[ChaosLord]

1 hour ago, SwampHeart said:

Or use Bits sellers on eBay, or just left over bits from other kits with extras? 

You don't think the kits should support legal unit formations without having to kitbash or bit shop?

[SwampHeart]

10 minutes ago, ChaosLord said:

You don't think the kits should support legal unit formations without having to kitbash or bit shop?

They should but some don't - doesn't change my expectation to see command represented on the table. 

[JPjr]

not sure how old the models are but it  could be a hangover from Fantasy where they might have had different min unit sizes.

[dekay]

3 hours ago, ChaosLord said:

Something I've noticed with some kits is that they don't include enough parts to have a standard and musician if you split the unit in two. Take Mighty Skullcrushers for example. Units are in multiples of 3, but the kit has six models and only one banner and one horn. It's legal to run two units of three while also having a banner and horn in each. So what, someone has to buy $200 worth of kits to get 3+3 properly outfitted?

I'm almost certain that Skullcrusher kit has parts for two command sets, given that it's an old 3 model set but doubled. Did they include only one copy of the sprue with the banner? Wasn't that the sprue that contained all the torsos too?

But yeah, generally, if the kit doesn't contain all the options you need, there's probably some conversion work to be done (with some ridiculous examples as 40k chaos havocs weapon options basically forcing you to...)

Edited May 20, 2019 by dekay

[ChaosLord]

4 minutes ago, dekay said:

I'm almost certain that Skullcrusher kit has parts for two command sets, given that it's an old 3 model set but doubled. Did they include only one copy of the sprue with the banner? Wasn't that the sprue that contained all the torsos too?

But yeah, generally, if the kit doesn't contain all the options you need, there's probably some conversion work to be done (with some ridiculous examples as 40k chaos havocs weapon options basically forcing you to...)

Ok, looking at the pics again, you appear to be right on this particular kit. Thanks for the clarification.

They only picture 3 sprues, which must be doubled. I haven't bought this kit yet.

[Sleboda]

Before commenting on what I have seen from TOs over the last few decades of going to tournaments, I'll make a quick statement about my personal expectations of WYSIWYG.

Model it.

My 'test' for an army is pretty simple. If you can place your army on the table in front of me and I can identify all units and weapon/armor/command options correctly without input from you, then you've done your part to create an experience consistent with both the rules and the hobby.  If I have to spend in-game time recalling what something "actually" is, then you have put your personal interest above those of your opponent (me) and the concept of miniature gaming in general, which is especially problematic in a tournament environment.

 

Now, as to what I've seen from TOs? 

Lip service.

In several instances, I have seen clearly spelled out rules on WYSIWYG (and other aspects of the event) in the packet, only to have TOs push off the responsibility, and the risk of being seen as "that guy" for simply expecting the rules to be applied, to the opponent. TOs are people too, and they don't like to have to be the Bad Guy and tell a player that his beautiful model cannot be used. I believe that part of the responsibility of being a TO as knowing that sometimes you will have to stick to your guns and upset someone. In the case of enforcing WYSIWYG rules that are clear in the packet, you will upset either the player who followed your rules or the one who did not. I know who I believe should not be getting upset in that case.

 

Specifically on banners (and the like), we have to remember that there are rules that eliminate specific models, sometimes resulting in several other models fleeing as well. How is it remotely fair to not let your opponent instantly and easily identify which of 20 models "really" the standard bearer? I've had to make choices about which specific models within a unit get removed, and if I get to play loosie-goosie with where the command models are from moment to moment, that's not right.

No. Model your models to match the rules for which you are trying to get a benefit. You don't get to have all the benefits and none of the efforts to get them.

Edited May 20, 2019 by Sleboda

[RuneBrush]

Would agree with @Sleboda on this.  Is it clearly identifiable as a unit armed with X when you put it on the table?  If so, then you're good to go!

As an example, my 40 person unit of spear armed skeletons has the champion armed with a sword - because it looks cool (and is exactly how GW models it too).  It is however very obvious that the unit has spears rather than swords.  It also helps identify the champion (who also is the only person with a helmet and armour).

[ChaosLord]

What do you all think about using and Exalted Deathbringer with Ruinous Axe as Slaughterpriest with Bloodbathed Axe? Both are Khorne Mortal Hero and carry big two-handed axes. I have the Exalted and feel like it would look great as a Slaughterpriest in my Khorne Daemon list.

[Vextol]

I'd love to play in a tournament but wysiwyg is why I don't. I understand the idea behind it but I also love modeling my guys to look a certain way.  Most of the time they sit on a shelf.  Like 99% of their lives.  I know that one weapon type may "play" better, but I don't always like how it looks. 

What if my bannerman had "Swords" painted in big letters on his banner.  Yes, some of my units may not be modeled correctly, however it's just because they're locked in time.  They're "supposed" to have swords out (that's what the banner is telling them) they just hadn't gotten them pulled yet when I deployed them 😬

I wouldn't mind repainting a banner over and over.  Or even printing a paper one that I hung from it.  Just swapped it out when I needed to.  

Edited May 21, 2019 by Vextol

[Battlefury]

It really depends on your Game Master / TO.

I can tell you, what wysiwyg mean at the tournaments, that I organise.
Actually I am very strict, because some players attempt to stretch the rules to their advantage.

In every case, each model has to be clearly identified, what it is supposed to be.

Example:

1 hour ago, ChaosLord said:

What do you all think about using and Exalted Deathbringer with Ruinous Axe as Slaughterpriest with Bloodbathed Axe? Both are Khorne Mortal Hero and carry big two-handed axes. I have the Exalted and feel like it would look great as a Slaughterpriest in my Khorne Daemon list.

No. A Conversion of a Slaughterpriest, with parts of the Exalted DB would be ok, but this exact example would be proxing, wich is not allowed at my tournaments.

Each weapon has to be absolutely clear in a physical way. This is depending on the warscroll. If the statement is, that a unit uses swords, then it can't be equipped with clubs, spears or anything else. The unit does not need to have the swod in ahnd, it can have it hanging on the side, but it has to be on the model. Command sections are an exeption there, they can just have the banner, horn or whatever, and therefore no weapon. As long as it is clear, what that command model is, and wich unit it belongs to, it is ok.
If it is the case, that a unit has certain weapons in the model kit, but can use abilities that refer to stuff not included i the kit, it is a different case. If the warscroll states it, then it can be used. But those special things are to be clarified with the GM.

So the basic rule is, that each player need to be able to easily identify the loadout of units and the models belonging to that unit without any doubt.
If that is not the case, it will be sorted out right away.

Conversions and self made models have to be reasonable amde. They can't be smaller than the original model, and the base has to be the same size as the original. So does the weaponry have to be, like stated before.

I have had a player, who took Archaon's dragon Dorgar and glued some Nurglings, where Archaon is sitting. Then he painted the whole model blue and told, that this would be a Lord of Change.

Just.No.

Most of the time, the TOs and Gms are that strict, to prevent players from abusing rules and to protect all players,w anting to have a good experince in the tourney.
So we don't want to be party poopers at all

[Vextol]

40 minutes ago, Battlefury said:

.. . The unit does not need to have the swod in ahnd, it can have it hanging on the side, but it has to be on the model. 

.... So the basic rule is, that each player need to be able to easily identify the loadout of units and the models belonging to that unit without any doubt.

How can these two statements be made in the same thought?  They are almost directly oppositional.  

I think I'm going to release the "shoulder sling" add on for models that is a giant, pre-painted bag of weapons you can sling over the shoulder of any given model 😉

Everyone's a troll hag now. 

[Battlefury]

That's not really oppositional, as the model does in fact have the intended weapon, although not in the hand. Therefore it can't have any other weapon in hand.

[Kairos Tejedestinos]

Most of the issues about people trying to exploit a soft wysiwyg are solved just by the opponent reading the list before the battle, which takes a few seconds. If your tournament doesn't check the lists and provide them printed afterwards, i can understand it, otherwise it's quite pointless because age of sigmar is extremely simple when it comes to weapon loadouts. 

Edited May 21, 2019 by Kairos Tejedestinos

[sandlemad]

So what's the absolutely clear physical visual difference between a Bloodbathed Axe and a Ruinous Axe?

[michu]

6 minutes ago, sandlemad said:

So what's the absolutely clear physical visual difference between a Bloodbathed Axe and a Ruinous Axe?

First belongs to the Slaughterpriest and second to the Exalted Deathbringer. If you have conversions just tell the opponent what unit it is.