WYSIWYG dual specialist weapons?

[Guest]

So if I want to model my guy with dual thunder hammers (or another spendy specialist weapon pair), but I only want to pay for a thunder hammer and a lightning claw, can I still model him with dual thunder hammers?

 

More so, would I still qualify as WYSIWYG?

 

In rules, merely having two weapons with the specialist rule is required for the bonus attack, they don't need to be the same weapon, so paying points beyond the cheapest second specialist weapon is just wasteful.

[pretre]

No, it would not.

[Guest]

No, it would not.

Even if the rules are functionally the same?

[VonVilkee]

Doing so gives you flexibility. The model is not wysiwyg for the flexibility, it is only wysiwyg for +1 attack.

 

This is why I asked about a crazy weapon set.

[VonVilkee]

You are right that spending all the extra points is wasteful. I'd totally play it and think it is cool but it ain't wysiwyg.

[Guest]

So if not WYSIWYG, if an opponent at an ITC event brought, for example, an OOP Lord of Macragge model (PA, two fists), and wanted to use it as a captain with two fists, would you object if they only paid points for the LC+fist? Or would it bother you to where you'd comment that their army wasn't WYSIWYG?

[pretre]

It doesn't matter if it bothers me or not, it is not wysiwyg.

[Guest]

It doesn't matter if it bothers me or not, it is not wysiwyg.

First, it does matter as TO's don't enforce WYSIWYG requirements at events unless it's extremely obvious. It's the players that enforce them.

 

Second, "What I See" is a power fist and a second weapon that gives +1 attack with that power fist. A second power fist and a lightning claw both fit "What I Get."

[VonVilkee]

But he could switch to use the lightning claw profile and strike at ini and surprise an opponent. That is a big change from wysiwyg.

[Guest]

But he could switch to use the lightning claw profile and strike at ini and surprise an opponent. That is a big change from wysiwyg.

You've missed my point. If I model it as two fists, I can say it is a fist and a second specialist weapon, because that is what they are. I don't really feel I'm incorrectly modeling them.

 

At no point am I saying the fists are two LCs, so I'm not going to switch weapon profiles mid game. I'm just evading a 10pt stupid tax for fielding OOP models...

[Guest]

So, in an event, like the ITC which requires WYSIWYG, do you think my list would be banned or otherwise rejected if I pay for the fist+LC and model it as two fists and treat it as two fists all event?

[pretre]

If they notice it or you get called on it, that would be bad.

 

You are basically asking if you can ignore a rule because you don't like it. The answer is going to be no.

[VonVilkee]

You wouldn't be rejected but by points you'd have the flexibility based on what you actually bought and not be wysiwyg.

 

My point was it ain't wysiwyg but as long as you are clear and or don't switch it up you'd be fine.

[VonVilkee]

I find it funny that most players would assume lightning claw and fist not double fist based on the cost and benefits!

[pretre]

Non wysiwyg at tournaments bugs me; as does not painted. I would not do this or want to see it.

[Guest]

You are basically asking if you can ignore a rule because you don't like it. The answer is going to be no.

No, I'm asking to ignore a rule because it's unreasonable.

 

2 fists is 50pts.

A LC and a Fist is 40pts.

 

Functionally, the LC and fist is equal to and greater than the two fists, despite a 10pt cost reduction.

 

And WYSIWYG is still a Fist and a second specialist weapon, provided I never use the second weapon as anything other than a bonus attack. Sounds very reasonable.

[Guest]

Non wysiwyg at tournaments bugs me; as does not painted. I would not do this or want to see it.

So if I show up with TWC modeled with two ferisian wolves and space marines standing on their backs, instead of actual TWC mounts, you'd get up in arms at the non-WYSIWYG nature of the models?

[pretre]

So if I show up with TWC modeled with two ferisian wolves and space marines standing on their backs, instead of actual TWC mounts, you'd get up in arms at the non-WYSIWYG nature of the models?

Obviously not, for many reasons.

 

One, it is clear counts as. Every thunder wolf in the army is represented the same.

Two, no rule is broken. I paid the points for what is represented.

Three, no mechanical advantage is generated. My models are the same profile as thunder wolves.

 

Let's apply that to your example:

It is not clear counts as. Some thunder hammers are thunder hammers and some are lightning claws.

You are paying less points than you should be for the modeled options.

A mechanical advantage is derived. You get the bonus of having two thunder hammers without paying the points.

 

Way to try to make it personal though.

[pretre]

If I, instead, wanted to model all of my librarians on thunderwolves but pay for bikes, I would be in your position. Yes, I would be getting lesser stats, but my army would not be wysiwyg since some thunderwolves would be bikes and some wouldn't.

[pretre]

Also, my dudes are on warhounds not fenrisian wolves. So meh.

[Guest]

Way to try to make it personal though.

Well, it did seem like you crossed a line into a personal discussion when you made such a claim as this:

 

Non wysiwyg at tournaments bugs me; as does not painted. I would not do this or want to see it.

 

Yours is just as much not WYSIWYG. Especially given that SW ICs have the option to be accompanied by two wolves.

 

It's a cool conversion and I respect it, but it isn't WYSIWYG. WYSIWYG would be a space wolf IC riding a single giant wolf.

 

 

One, it is clear counts as. Every thunder wolf in the army is represented the same.

Two, no rule is broken. I paid the points for what is represented.

Three, no mechanical advantage is generated. My models are the same profile as thunder wolves.

 

Let's apply that to your example:

It is not clear counts as. Some thunder hammers are thunder hammers and some are lightning claws.

You are paying less points than you should be for the modeled options.

A mechanical advantage is derived. You get the bonus of having two thunder hammers without paying the points.

So, 1 & 2, "counts as" is not WYSIWYG, so it does break the rule of WYSIWYG.

 

As for my example, I am not gaining any advantages (which is #3).

 

Two thunder hammers is 60pts. Confers the single TH profile with +1 attack.

 

A Thunder hammer and LC is 45pts. It confers the single TH profile with +1 attack AND the single LC profile with +1 attack.

 

If I model it WYSIWYG as a LC and thunder hammer, I get all the mechanical advantages of two thunder hammers and two lightning claws, while only paying for a single lightning claw and single thunderhammer.

 

So, if my model has two thunder hammers and I say it's a thunder hammer and second specialist weapon and pay for it as LC+TH, and only field it as a TH with +1 attack, I am only playing at a mechanical disadvantage for not using the LC's profile too.

[Guest]

So, compromise, If I get out the detail brush and write "lightning claw" on one of the fists, does that solve it for you?

[pretre]

So, compromise, If I get out the detail brush and write "lightning claw" on one of the fists, does that solve it for you?

No.

[pretre]

Well, it did seem like you crossed a line into a personal discussion when you made such a claim as this:

That wasn't a personal statement about you; that was a personal statement about me.

 

 

Yours is just as much not WYSIWYG. Especially given that SW ICs have the option to be accompanied by two wolves.

 

    It's a cool conversion and I respect it, but it isn't WYSIWYG. WYSIWYG would be a space wolf IC riding a single giant wolf.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about what WYSIWYG, Counts As and Proxy all mean. Let me lay it out for you.

 

WYSIWYG: What you see is what you get. I.e. I can look at the table and see what your models are equipped with.

Good Example: Your character is equipped with a Power fist and storm shield. It is modeled with a power fist and storm shield.

Bad Example: Your character is equipped with a power fist and storm shield. It is modeled with a two-handed sword.

 

Counts As: You represent one model or wargear option with another model or wargear option. The key to good counts-as is that it is unique, it is thematic/makes sense and it is clear to your opponent.

Good Example: You like Shuri Cats on Space Marines and want to use them. You count them as Grav Weapons in your army. The only shuri cats in your army are grav weapons. No grav weapons are represented by another model. This is clear counts-as. The shuri cats are unique to grav, it makes sense when you look at it and are clear to your opponent.

Bad Example: You like shuri cats on Space Marines and want to use them. You count them as Grav weapons in one squad. You count them as plasma in another squad. You also have some models with the normal grav model and others with the normal plasma model. Your shuri cat models are not unique, the distinction between which one is which does not make sense and it is not clear which one is which and it is not clear to your opponent which ones are grav and which are plasma.

 

Proxy: You represent one model or wargear option with another model or wargear. No effort is made to make sure that the model is unique, thematic/makes sense or that it is clear.

Example: I will be buying dreadnights next week, but need to proxy Trygons for them until then.

 

 

    So, 1 & 2, "counts as" is not WYSIWYG, so it does break the rule of WYSIWYG.

Counts as is WYSIWYG. As long as it is clear, unique and thematic/makes sense.

 

Riding two wolves vs one wolf is thematic/makes sense. It is clear which models are TWC. Only TWC are represented in this fashion.

 

 

    As for my example, I am not gaining any advantages (which is #3).

You're saving 15 points. Even if it wasn't true, you are still not clear and you are not unique. It is bad Counts-As even if they cost the same.

 

 

    Two thunder hammers is 60pts. Confers the single TH profile with +1 attack.

 

    A Thunder hammer and LC is 45pts. It confers the single TH profile with +1 attack AND the single LC profile with +1 attack.

That doesn't matter. Your model is not WYSIWYG. It is not clear which one is the TH and which is not. It doesn't make sense for some TH to be LC and some to be TH. It is not unique: some TH are modeled as TH and some as LC.

 

 

    If I model it WYSIWYG as a LC and thunder hammer, I get all the mechanical advantages of two thunder hammers and two lightning claws, while only paying for a single lightning claw and single thunderhammer.

Then do that.

 

 

So, if my model has two thunder hammers and I say it's a thunder hammer and second specialist weapon and pay for it as LC+TH, and only field it as a TH with +1 attack, I am only playing at a mechanical disadvantage for not using the LC's profile too.

You didn't pay for the second thunder hammer and you are not WYSIWYG. You saved points on your configuration by buying another option and failed to model it.

 

I get your argument. Why should I have to pay 15 more points to get a mechanically worse option than the 45 point option?

 

My answer: You shouldn't. But if you pay 45 points, it should be Hammer and LC.

 

Now if you want to model all your lightning claws as axes in your army and have no axes that aren't lightning claws, that's perfectly fine. Go for it. That's WYSIWYG Counts-As.

 

 

[pretre]

From the old rulebook and generally what people are talking about when they say 'WYSIWYG'. Emphasis mine:

 

‘What You See Is What You Get’
Character models in particular tend to have a lot
of options as to what weapons and wargear they
can use – given in the army list of their Codex.
The rule is that such equipment must be visually
represented on the model so your opponents can
clearly see what they are facing. This concept is
often referred to as WYSIWYG, which stands for
‘what you see is what you get’.