Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
InSaint

How strict is Wysiwyg?

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, XReN said:

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. 

Is it bad, really? I think what @Backbreaker meant is that Infinity works just fine without wysiwyg (because, as you said, it lacks model options. For my entire infinity career I've been more and more convinced CB had some unspoken rule against sculpting Aleph shotguns :D). Reason isn't all that important, it just shows that even in highly competitive game good communication between players makes up for lack of proper options modelled.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dekay said:

Is it bad, really? I think what @Backbreaker meant is that Infinity works just fine without wysiwyg (because, as you said, it lacks model options. For my entire infinity career I've been more and more convinced CB had some unspoken rule against sculpting Aleph shotguns :D). Reason isn't all that important, it just shows that even in highly competitive game good communication between players makes up for lack of proper options modelled.

You can play warhammer with cork and Infinity with silhouettes on bases and that might be fine with some people. You can hammer down furniture nails with a big file, I did that when I felt too lazy to look for hammer around. But if you can do something and it works, doesn't mean you should.

I see Infinity's lack of sculpts as an excuse not to have 100% WYSIWYG, but I won't play Intruder with HMG as Intruder with Multy-Sniper because there is no valid reason to do so.  And If you have this "rule of cool", which I respect and if you have a great looking conversion I won't mind if it has a blade on the warscroll, but you model it with an artefact, like Hammer of Awesome or smtg, but it's not a valid reason to play, let's say, paired swords as sword and board in your 30-man-chaff because first looks cool, but second works better. 

Generals don't give soldiers a second sword and tell them to use it as a shield for cool looks, this wholle proxy thing turns a game of flavourfull high fantasy into pushing markers around. People play this game for how it looks, for the lore, even competetive ones, when there are obviously enough wargames, better suited for competetive play. 

And to round it up - being a below average hobbyist I feel like I can expect from other people the same (which is little) effort to make the game look better for everyone. I had a discussion about Contrast Paints not long ago and figured out that there is a guy with tremors, a guy with previously broken fingers and a guy with very little time for hobby who are far better painters than I am. Now I look up to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can play without WYSIWYG but its harder. You have to ask your opponent to remind you what unit is what, you've got to cross check your army list to make sure you know what is what and in Warhammer you might have two or three units that look the same but which are armed differently. Very easy for either person to mix up which is which without any visual clue to tell them apart.

Infinity gets away with it because its a different scale of game, the number of models per side is different and how you take turns and relate to them is different. It can get away with less because its operating with less. 

 

1 hour ago, Kasper said:

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?

The difference is that Shalaxi has an official appearance within the game. When you build the keeper with the different heat, coattails and spear you're building the Shalaxi model. Put it down and any player familiar with Slaanesh will see Shalaxi not just a regular keeper. Now sure in a game most might well remember its just representing your general and that's fine; in a tornament though where people are playing games back to back against lots of opponents the more clarity there is the fairer the game is. They don't want to be stopping every 5 mins to confirm what each unit is.

The core of WYSIWYG is about clarity, about making it easier to play by being able to look at the models on the table and identify the unit type and weapons it has at a glance without having to ask "are those orks with spears really orks with spears or are they with swords?" With your example is that model that looks like Shalaxi actually shalaxi or is she just another keeper? What happens if next time you play that person you actually do use it as Shalaxi, they now run a risk that they forget what it is and charge their bloodthirster in only to find "Oh no wait that is Slahaxi, the perfect anti-super monster killer". 

 

 

GW's rulings on things these days are rather wishy-washy its the same as base sizes. They balance the game around them an then say "well it doesn't really matter". This is just GW trying not to alienate older customers who have armies on the "wrong bases". 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I myself don’t really care if my opponent plays his whole army true to it’s looks.

on tournaments it can be different though, than again I’ve been playing my clanrats who are a mixed bunch of spears and swords, always equipped with swords (hand weapons), and nobody really cares about it. 

So I guess there are exceptions🤷‍♂️

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I was thinking of posting a thread about this but will just post these quick questions in here instead:

I built my Dankhold Troggoth as a hybrid model with the Troggboss stalagmites back piece and neck and the regular Troggoth's large two handed club, thought I could use it as either a Trogboss or a regular Troggoth and just tell my opponent beforehand - is that OK? Their weapons in the rules looked identical.

Also, would it be generally frowned upon to use the Boggleye model as a Madcap Shaman and the Shroomancer model as a Fungoid Cave-Shaman?

Cheers!

Edited by Gareth 🍄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is making me realise another factor in why I'm so bad at playing the game. I'd never even considered that some players can tell which weapon options something has at a glance from across the table, let alone how many models are in a unit and which are the champions etc.

Being partially sighted I struggle to keep track of who's where at all, without trying to work out the capabilities of my opponents models! Can't think of a way around it except larger scale models though...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gareth 🍄 said:

I was thinking of posting a thread about this but will just post these quick questions in here instead:

I built my Dankhold Troggoth as a hybrid model with the Troggboss stalagmites back piece and neck and the regular Troggoth's large two handed club, thought I could use it as either a Trogboss or a regular Troggoth and just tell my opponent beforehand - is that OK? Their weapons in the rules looked identical.

Also, would it be generally frowned upon to use the Boggleye model as a Madcap Shaman and the Shroomancer model as a Fungoid Cave-Shaman?

Cheers!

Mate it's your model. I would have no problem playing against it in a tournament. The important thing is you tell your opponent before the game starts. 

Obviously you may get so trouble with the ultra competitive players that think their some kind of tactical genius because they won a game of aos😂

Some models are very expensive and so some people magnetise weapon options/ some lack the skill to do that and so build what they like the look of. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about using Vandus Hammerhand as Lord-Celestant on Dracoth? Assuming he was given a shield and one of the hammer weapon options was chosen. He is a Lord-Celestant.

Also what about Astreia Solbright as Lord-Arcanum on Dracoline. She is a Lord-Arcanum.

Both of these seem legit to me. 

Appreciate everyone's input into this thread. I want to do some tournaments at some point, so I don't want to back myself too far into a corner in terms of my models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, ChaosLord said:

What about using Vandus Hammerhand as Lord-Celestant on Dracoth? Assuming he was given a shield and one of the hammer weapon options was chosen. He is a Lord-Celestant.

Also what about Astreia Solbright as Lord-Arcanum on Dracoline. She is a Lord-Arcanum.

Both of these seem legit to me. 

Appreciate everyone's input into this thread. I want to do some tournaments at some point, so I don't want to back myself too far into a corner in terms of my models.

There are some models that simply double up as an un-named version (Khorgus Khul is another one).  They're going to be fine as there isn't a specific model for the un-named version.  What wouldn't be is plonking Nagash on the table and telling your opponent it's Arkhan the Black on a bad day.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

There are some models that simply double up as an un-named version (Khorgus Khul is another one).  They're going to be fine as there isn't a specific model for the un-named version.  What wouldn't be is plonking Nagash on the table and telling your opponent it's Arkhan the Black on a bad day.

So you think this would be ok? I was planning to buy Vandus and using him as Lord-Celestant on Dracoth because I'm not too keen on buying the two pack and having one left over, plus this model is much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@ChaosLord As Vandus Hammerhand has legal equipment (you can build similarly equiped LC out of second kit) you can use him as generic LC with Tempestos Hammer and no shield. And Mighty Lord of Khorne has no other option than Korgos Khul miniature.

Edited by michu
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

To each his own I guess?

Even the recent Warhammer Community article on 'Battle Ready' is sending a message of community acceptance rather than explicitly guidelines, which is a great move!

Edited by InSaint
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, ageofpaddsmar said:

Mate it's your model. I would have no problem playing against it in a tournament. The important thing is you tell your opponent before the game starts. 

Obviously you may get so trouble with the ultra competitive players that think their some kind of tactical genius because they won a game of aos😂

Some models are very expensive and so some people magnetise weapon options/ some lack the skill to do that and so build what they like the look of. 

 

OK cool, thanks! I don't plan on playing ultra-competively, but I was worried about annoying my future opponents once I get my army ready for battle 😅

Edited by Gareth 🍄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2019 at 12:22 PM, XReN said:

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. 

To be fair, this problem is very small in AOS aswell, since most units have simple profiles and little weapon choices. One that comes to mind are arkanaut's weapons that only come with one of each weapons in the sprues if i am not mistaken. I have zero problems with peoplee telling me that all their special weapons dude are just skyhooks.

40k is a much bigger offender in that regard, since most units have different weapons and special weapons loadouts and combinations, that might make it really hard to follow if not properly represented.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Kairos Tejedestinos said:

ave zero problems with peoplee telling me that all their special weapons dude are just skyhooks

Now he tells us ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could accept certain level of conversion (liberators using axes as blades, or maces as hammers), but I could not accept a weapon with its own rules being used as another weapon (grandhammers as grandblades). 

I'm most permissive with models without weapon options, as long as they could not feature another model better.

Mi opinion is:

If the model or weapon has its own rules, use its own rules. 

If the model or weapon does not have rules, use the rules of the most closed option (has edge, it is two handed... ) 

Another example with skyhooks in kharadrons. I could not allow another specific weapon as a proxy, but a minimal spear conversion is allowed (as skyhooks are the most similar to spears within all weapon options). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think my thoughts on this are coloured by my eyes - I'm getting to that age where I probably need glasses, but I'm a bit in denial about it, with the result that I can't really tell the difference between a sword and a hammer from standing up across the table.  So I need to be told what units are all the time anyway.

I also think there are a couple of different cases that are being combined together into one case - units that have options, and units that don't. 

Consider "Shootas" from the Gloomspite Gits.  There are no armament options for Shootas - they all just have those bows and some sort of dumb stabbing thing.   Compare that to Stabbas, which have an option between swords and spears - you need to be able to tell the distinction, because there is a difference in the rules.  I'm much friendlier to a requirement for WYSIWYG for the latter than the former.  Someone who refuses to allow crossbow armed Shootas (if the models existed) citing confusion about what they are is being disingenuous at best.

I also have a really hard time not getting angry about this topic.  In general I'm more about WYSICE: what you see is close enough.  Actually, everyone is WYSICE, even the strictest WYSIWYG proponent, as everyone has a line beyond which they don't require exact representation.  Whether it is colour choices for existing subfactions ("that belt isn't the right shade of brown, therefore your Hallowed Knights aren't allowed to be Hallowed Knights") or alternate model builds ("according to the instructions, that arm and shield should go with that other torso and legs, therefore I officially have no idea what model you are using") or head swaps or any number of other obvious things where a person will say "I demand WYSIWYG, but obviously I don't mean <blank>".  I also want WYSIWYG, obviously without meaning <blank>, but my <blank> is pretty big.

  • Like 1
  • LOVE IT! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

I think my thoughts on this are coloured by my eyes - I'm getting to that age where I probably need glasses, but I'm a bit in denial about it, with the result that I can't really tell the difference between a sword and a hammer from standing up across the table.  So I need to be told what units are all the time anyway.

You know straining your eyes to try and see only makes the issue worse so I've heard - chances are you'll only need the glasses sometime any way so easier to just go get a quick test and have it confirmed. Heck might be you don't yet need them or anything, but it won't hurt to find out for sure. :)

  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be a stupid question, but - I'm making a conversion of Knight-Azyros - body from female evocator and staff, lantern, scrolls and wings from Azyros. On one hand, there doens't seem to be any problems with this models - prosecutors all male, fight in units and has no lanterns,  knight-venator is using bow. Ut on the other hand I can imagine people being like "This is flying evocator, not Azyros". Any recommendations, please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Adolmaea said:

Might be a stupid question, but - I'm making a conversion of Knight-Azyros - body from female evocator and staff, lantern, scrolls and wings from Azyros. On one hand, there doens't seem to be any problems with this models - prosecutors all male, fight in units and has no lanterns,  knight-venator is using bow. Ut on the other hand I can imagine people being like "This is flying evocator, not Azyros". Any recommendations, please?

Honestly, if it has the wings/scroll/lantern, your opponent would have to be a serious grognard to call you out on a gender swap. I have a pretty casual gaming group near me but even at bigger stuff I can't imagine that being an issue. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Yeah, unless the lore says they are always male, that's not an issue at all.

Even the gender/lore issue is only a problem in order to prevent The Marneus Calgar Shoolbus Fiasco from recurring.

Edited by Sleboda
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Euphanism, Sleboda, thank You both, now I can continue my work with calm heart)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Adolmaea said:

Might be a stupid question, but - I'm making a conversion of Knight-Azyros - body from female evocator and staff, lantern, scrolls and wings from Azyros. On one hand, there doens't seem to be any problems with this models - prosecutors all male, fight in units and has no lanterns,  knight-venator is using bow. Ut on the other hand I can imagine people being like "This is flying evocator, not Azyros". Any recommendations, please?

Flying+Lantern should be enough

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...