How strict is Wysiwyg?

[Vextol]

24 minutes ago, Battlefury said:

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.

I think I understand.  So if he is holding a spear with a sword sheathed on his side, that wouldn't count? 

[EccentricCircle]

I'm the exact opposite of a tournament player, so can't really offer any advice, however its interesting to read the discussion.

When I first started using my DoK army I accidentally used the Hag queen model as the Slaughter Queen. It didn't make a difference in the battle, but when I next wanted to play them I had a tricky decision to make, because my Slaughter Queen had performed a lot of heroic feats in that battle, despite her army loosing over all. She'd taken command when her general was killed, and endured round after round despite everything thrown at her. By the end of the game she had a name, and the start of a backstory. I thus really didn't want to switch models for that character, since it felt a bit wrong. My solution was to find a nice dark-elven sword which would fit in place of her chalice and convert the model to have the correct weapon load out. I repainted her to fit her new status as the general of the army going forwards, and have been using her as a slaughter queen ever since.

I'm curious though as to whether this wouldn't be allowed, since while its an effective conversion, which I'm please with the results of it isn't a particularly dramatic one. The model still has the same basic pose it always did.

(Note that this question is entirely academic, since I'm never going to attend a tournament, I'd be interested to hear people's views though!)

[michu]

It has a sword - it should be ok. Only "That Guys" would have problems.

[ChaosLord]

1 hour ago, sandlemad said:

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

A two-handed axe is a two-handed axe, From my perspective, as long as my opponent knows it's the priest, and there are no other similar looking models with which it could potentially be confused, then I personally don't see a problem. I doubt anyone would confuse it with a Flesh Hound, Bloodthirster or Bloodletter.

If someone is running a tournament and wants to set rules that everything needs to be represented, that is certainly their right. But I personally find some of what I'm reading here to be overly pedantic and not in the spirit of the "hobby" nature of this, well, hobby.

[Sleboda]

5 hours ago, Vextol said:

What if my bannerman had "Swords" painted in big letters on his banner

That's effectively no different than having a scrap of paper next to them on the table. Well, actually it's a little different because it would lessen the immersion since no standard bearer in a "real" unit of Tomb Guard (lol) would write their weapon type on his flag.

I can appreciate your position, but to me the problems I highlighted in my earlier post are still present.

[Vextol]

7 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

That's effectively no different than having a scrap of paper next to them on the table. Well, actually it's a little different because it would lessen the immersion since no standard bearer in a "real" unit of Tomb Guard (lol) would write their weapon type on his flag.

Please! You're just not thinking of it correctly...

[Galas]

i always follow WYSIWYG.

 

With one exception. Warscrolls that have "Any model can be a musician or standard bearer". For me, those units have  those effects always active, because I have seen a guy with a 30 man clan rat unit where everybody was a standard bearer from island of Blood. And it looks silly. But is technically the most tactical thing to do. And as even the champion can be technically champion+standard bearer+musician (I actually have my Bloodkine of my Minotaurs with the standards at their back samurai style), theres no point.

So, as I don't want to punish people because they don't have 30 miniatures all of them with banners and musical instruments, thats where I ignore WYSIWYG.

With units that have "1 in every 10 models can be a standard bearer/musician", for example, then I expect the models to be represented.

[Sleboda]

My local tournaments, including Adepticon, have changed that rule to 1 of each command model.

For me, and others who like to make sure that their non-tournament games conform to tournament rules (so experiences can be applied), that means one Clanrat banner and thus it gets modeled.

Also sucks for 20 Bloodletters, who should be getting both banner effects on a unit, but only get one now.

That said, I understand the point.

[Battlefury]

13 hours ago, Vextol said:

I think I understand.  So if he is holding a spear with a sword sheathed on his side, that wouldn't count? 

Kind of. If it is due to optical purpose it would be ok, but the spear in his hand would have the priority, ergo: he would be a spearmen model.

[TheNotebookGM]

I've been wondering about this too. My units are mostly done up properly but as an example my "Battlesmith" is actually a Runefather on Foot holding a banner from a unit of Swordmasters, with a headpiece from an Archmage with the talon of a High Warden wrapped around it.

That said it is clearly "Dwarf Hero With Big Banner" - I'm going to my first GT this fall and this thread is giving me the stress.

[XReN]

4 hours ago, Galas said:

i always follow WYSIWYG.

 

With one exception. Warscrolls that have "Any model can be a musician or standard bearer". For me, those units have  those effects always active, because I have seen a guy with a 30 man clan rat unit where everybody was a standard bearer from island of Blood. And it looks silly. But is technically the most tactical thing to do. And as even the champion can be technically champion+standard bearer+musician (I actually have my Bloodkine of my Minotaurs with the standards at their back samurai style), theres no point.

So, as I don't want to punish people because they don't have 30 miniatures all of them with banners and musical instruments, thats where I ignore WYSIWYG.

With units that have "1 in every 10 models can be a standard bearer/musician", for example, then I expect the models to be represented.

I think this guy had great time re-doing all his clanrats when musicians and banners have been reduced to 1 per 20

And when the unit have a limited number of those options they have to be clearly visible for reasons already mentioned here

[RuneBrush]

17 hours 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.

I'd say that it would depend entirely on if you'd done any conversion work.  The reason for wysiwyg is that it's written with your opponent in mind.  In the heat of a game it's really easy to forget what special conditions your opponent has told you - heck it's easy to forget what model is your opponent's general!  If your model looks like an Exalted Deathbringer then that's what you should be running it as.  At a minimum to run the Exalted Deathbringer with Ruinous Axe as a Slaughterpriest, you would need to remove the skullgouger and do a head swap - as both of these items clearly identify it as the original unit.

[ageofpaddsmar]

First off I agree with a lot of people that command or special weapon options on a unit should probably be wysiwyg  as some have abilities which may change the game. However when it doesn't really effect anything other then range (think of skinks with javlins or blowpipes) then im happy for the opponent to tell me before the game. some people take it way to seriously . my friends GUO is modelled with Rotigus's head but normal weapons for the guo because it looks cool and the model is expensive. Are some of you really telling me he cant use that as either model so has wasted his money lol

[Kramer]

1 hour ago, TheNotebookGM said:

That said it is clearly "Dwarf Hero With Big Banner" - I'm going to my first GT this fall and this thread is giving me the stress

Don’t stress. That’s going to absolutely fine 

[TheNotebookGM]

7 minutes ago, Kramer said:

Don’t stress. That’s going to absolutely fine 

Okay cool, because I'm going to flip if someone tries to tell me my vulkites don't have throwing axes because I put grapnels and power tools on their belts. I will not stand for counting already nearly useless axes, haha. 

[Sleboda]

24 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

The reason for wysiwyg is that it's written with your opponent in mind

This comment wins the internet for the day.

Congrats, @RuneBrush. 

[JPjr]

Wysiwyg - actually sounds like a lesser known chaos god, of pedantry perhaps, that GW tried to introduce around 3rd edition but never really took off, is now of dubious canonicity and just used by Josh Reynolds as an Easter egg for old fans in his stories.

Edited May 22, 2019 by JPjr

[Kramer]

27 minutes ago, TheNotebookGM said:

Okay cool, because I'm going to flip if someone tries to tell me my vulkites don't have throwing axes because I put grapnels and power tools on their belts. I will not stand for counting already nearly useless axes, haha. 

Hmm, throwing power tools should have a 5+ 5+ profile, checks out to me  

[Kasper]

I have actually been curious about this rule. I bought 2 Keeper of Secrets, but one of them would be my general and therefore be stronger due to artefacts etc. To differenciate between the 2 models on the battlefield, I decided to build one as the named unique Keeper character "Shalaxi Helbane" and the other as a "normal" Keeper of Secrets. The idea would be that my opponent could easily tell apart which would be significantly stronger. Would tournaments allow for this, even though Shalaxi is equipped with a spear rather than her normal sword?

[Overread]

@Kasper I don't think many would allow it. Shalaxi is a known form of the Keeper with a different appearance and weapon set. It's not just different its a totally different model in rules terms. 

 

Now sure most players can mostly remember that its just another keeper, but in the end the long spear and head dress are going to confuse them mid- game; esp in a tourney where you might be playing against new and different people. 

 

 

Personally I would say if you want to have two keepers of secrets and have them appear differently then model one normally and then model the other with Shalaxi's clothing. That would give it a different appearance from the other, but with no headdress and no spear it wouldn't be confused with the proper Shalaxi model. 

[Kasper]

26 minutes ago, Overread said:

@Kasper I don't think many would allow it. Shalaxi is a known form of the Keeper with a different appearance and weapon set. It's not just different its a totally different model in rules terms. 

 

Now sure most players can mostly remember that its just another keeper, but in the end the long spear and head dress are going to confuse them mid- game; esp in a tourney where you might be playing against new and different people. 

 

 

Personally I would say if you want to have two keepers of secrets and have them appear differently then model one normally and then model the other with Shalaxi's clothing. That would give it a different appearance from the other, but with no headdress and no spear it wouldn't be confused with the proper Shalaxi model. 

Really? Well it is interesting to get other people's take on it. As said, it was purely to "help" the opposing player to differenciate between the general and a normal Keeper. I personally couldn't care less. I just figured a Keeper model was a Keeper, despite it looking a little different.

[Overread]

@Kasper Shalaxi isn't just another keeper though - its a specific form of keeper with a specific dress, head and weapon set. If anything its actually easier to tell two identical keepers apart on the battlefield rather than always having to remember that the Shalaxi model isn't a Shalaxi on the table. 

 

Sure in casual games its easy to proxy like that, but in tournaments people expect the proper models to be the proper things. 

[Backbreaker]

I really dislike wysiwyg. A lot of people say that it's necessary in competitive games, but I never had a problem in other games (like Infinity) .

We don't play against an opponent but we play with him. Just ask and play it fair, it shouldn't matter if it's a narrative game or competitive one.

But hey, that's just my opinion 😊

[Kasper]

39 minutes ago, Overread said:

@Kasper Shalaxi isn't just another keeper though - its a specific form of keeper with a specific dress, head and weapon set. If anything its actually easier to tell two identical keepers apart on the battlefield rather than always having to remember that the Shalaxi model isn't a Shalaxi on the table. 

 

Sure in casual games its easy to proxy like that, but in tournaments people expect the proper models to be the proper things. 

I'm really grateful for the insight and really not trying to nitpick, as I'd like to try building towards tournaments, but I'm just curious why kitbashing and conversions are allowed then. If I converted my Keeper, how is it any different? Or even people that convert the leaders in their battleline unit - Why wouldn't the opponent potentially be confused about wether it is a hero/herald or just the leader of the battleline unit?

[XReN]

10 minutes ago, Backbreaker said:

I really dislike wysiwyg. A lot of people say that it's necessary in competitive games, but I never had a problem in other games (like Infinity) .

We don't play against an opponent but we play with him. Just ask and play it fair, it shouldn't matter if it's a narrative game or competitive one.

But hey, that's just my opinion 😊

Infinity still doesn't have sculpts for all loadouts, as well as some attachments aren't represented, there is definetely no Intruder with AD launcher and I can't really remember if my Corregidors have Light Flamethrowers on every model which should have one. And you don't have a choice of how you want to build a model, you have sculpts with close to no variation. So, bad example.