pretre Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 And ITC: All models are expected to be WYSIWYG to a reasonable standard. Exceptions will be made for themed units or armies. Using a proxy for a model violates our policy. Using a reasonable substitute to “Counts As” another model, does not violate our policy. If in doubt, send a picture in of a model to your TO in advance to ask if it is acceptable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 So the real answer is 'Ask your TO'. In a friendly game, I don't give a crud. In an ITC (or similar) tournament, I would be annoyed and would consider it a violation of the tournament WYSIWYG rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 The only way I could see your option working, and personally I don't think like it, is if you only had two thunder hammers in your entire army and they were on that dude. Then you could say that all TH/LC combos in your army are represented by (counts as) 2 Thunder Hammers. Then, at least, it would be clear to your opponent. I don't like that solution, since it says that some TH are LC and some are TH, but at least it is somewhat clearer to your opponent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 That wasn't a personal statement about you; that was a personal statement about me. Correct. And the example I used was a personal example of your army. I kept the topic at personal statements about you. 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. Although I agree with the above definitions, I think you are missing something key regarding the point of WYSIWYG. The point, is that the model should look as it is game mechanically equipped and this should be known without confusion. If a model has two power fists, the opponent should see it and think Fist+1 attack for two weapons. If I take my fist+LC, which can function as Fist+1 attack or as LC+1 attack, and strictly field it as Fist+1 attack, there is no confusion when I field it modeled as dual fists. You see it across the table and you still think Fist+1 attack for two weapons. I don't think it's counts as, or a proxy, to field LC+Fist modeled as two fists, provided I consistently use only the two fists profile of the LC+Fist. What you see is what you get, and my opponent will see two fists and they will play as two fists. It would be like if I modeled my BP+CCW as just a pair of knives. Provided I never try to shoot the knife, what is the conflict with WYSIWYG? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbusePuppy Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 Asking for people's opinion on a subject and then immediately responding by telling them that their opinion is wrong seems like a very strange path to take. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 Asking for people's opinion on a subject and then immediately responding by telling them that their opinion is wrong seems like a very strange path to take. Sounds harsh as above, but it made sense in the present moment. I asked an iffy question, then go flat rejection without clarity. Through the course of the discussion, I got firmer in my belief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
generalripphook Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 Why not model one thunder hammer different? So it looks more lightning claw-y make it so it doenst look like a thunder hammer anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 Why not model one thunder hammer different? So it looks more lightning claw-y make it so it doenst look like a thunder hammer anymore. Thunderhammers was the extreme example I used because there is a greater point difference. I've got an OOP Lord Macragge which isn't really WYISWYG as the current incarnation of Calgar, but is still a cool model. He's got the same dual fists, just not the extra barrels under the fist. It doesn't really matter, as I've already got another more current calgar model. Still, I want to field this guy and he's got two fists that are part of the model (single piece metal model). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 Take a few of the combat knives that GW puts like 15 of on every Marine sprue and glue a couple of them to the back of one. Bam, Lightning Claw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 Correct. And the example I used was a personal example of your army. I kept the topic at personal statements about you. The fact that you don't see anything wrong with these statements says a lot. It would be like if I modeled my BP+CCW as just a pair of knives. Provided I never try to shoot the knife, what is the conflict with WYSIWYG? It isn't WYSIWYG. It's funny you mention this because this exact situation is something I deal with. In 5th edition, I converted several counts-as mark of the wulfen as normal Grey Hunters with two close combat weapons and marked off company symbols on their shoulder pads. Clear counts-as, can't be confused as anything else. Can I use them now? Not really. There is no option for a grey hunter with 2 CCW. I can either: 1) Convert them to a correct loadout 2) Use them as some other model that can take two CCW like a lone wolf 3) Not use them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 Sounds harsh as above, but it made sense in the present moment. I asked an iffy question, then go flat rejection without clarity. Through the course of the discussion, I got firmer in my belief. lols Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Warwick Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 I would not have an issue playing this, as long as it was cleared pre game like all alternative modeling should be. However, this would strictly and mechanically be a proxy, and I think iconic weaponry can be somewhat confusing to keep track of as a proxy. In your case- What you see (what's modeled): two power fists Is not What you get (paid for in points for the rules): power fist and lightning claw. Therefore it is categorically not WYSIWYG. If it were my issue I would either pay full cost or try to model one clearly as a lightning claw. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 It's funny you mention this because this exact situation is something I deal with. In 5th edition, I converted several counts-as mark of the wulfen as normal Grey Hunters with two close combat weapons and marked off company symbols on their shoulder pads. Clear counts-as, can't be confused as anything else. Can I use them now? Not really. There is no option for a grey hunter with 2 CCW. I can either: 1) Convert them to a correct loadout 2) Use them as some other model that can take two CCW like a lone wolf 3) Not use them. I actually did this with some scouts, also in 5th. Converted them into running positions and just ran them at the enemy with dual knives. No one had any issues with them. If anything, I got compliments. I would not have an issue playing this, as long as it was cleared pre game like all alternative modeling should be. However, this would strictly and mechanically be a proxy, and I think iconic weaponry can be somewhat confusing to keep track of as a proxy. In your case- What you see (what's modeled): two power fists Is not What you get (paid for in points for the rules): power fist and lightning claw. Therefore it is categorically not WYSIWYG. If it were my issue I would either pay full cost or try to model one clearly as a lightning claw. I don't really think points play into WYSIWYG. The concept is just that literally "What you see is what you get." So if mechanically I can run a Fist and a LC as two fists, then it really shouldn't matter if they are modeled as two fists, because it wouldn't confuse my opponent visually. I mean, if you look across the table and see my dual fist model. You think Fist+1 attack. And I play it as Fist+1 attack. What you saw is what I got. That is the point of the WYSIWYG rule, it's clarity of what rules the model is representing, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 I actually did this with some scouts, also in 5th. Converted them into running positions and just ran them at the enemy with dual knives. No one had any issues with them. If anything, I got compliments. That's cool and all, but it isn't WYSIWYG. Some knives being guns and some knives being knives is not consistent. I don't really think points play into WYSIWYG. The concept is just that literally "What you see is what you get." So if mechanically I can run a Fist and a LC as two fists, then it really shouldn't matter if they are modeled as two fists, because it wouldn't confuse my opponent visually. You are partially correct. Points do not factor into WYSIWYG. What your model is equipped with does. If your model is equipped with two PF, it needs to be modeled with two PF or a counts-as that is consistent, unique and clear to your opponent. I mean, if you look across the table and see my dual fist model. You think Fist+1 attack. And I play it as Fist+1 attack. What you saw is what I got. That is the point of the WYSIWYG rule, it's clarity of what rules the model is representing, right? When I see a dual fist model, I think dual fists. That isn't what it is representing; you have misrepresented your model by modelling it incorrectly. Your intention is irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 When I see a dual fist model, I think dual fists. That isn't what it is representing; you have misrepresented your model by modelling it incorrectly. Your intention is irrelevant. Okay, so how about this. Model wise, the LC is basically power swords mounted on brass knuckles and held by a power fist, as shown here: If I model them as two fists, and then just have one of those those quad power sword brass knuckles hanging at the side, does that meet WYSIWYG? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 If I model them as two fists, and then just have one of those those quad power sword brass knuckles hanging at the side, does that meet WYSIWYG? Is this modeling unique in your army? If you only do this on one model, then yes. Is it clear to your opponent? I would argue as long as the PSBN is clearly modeled, then yes. Does it make sense? Yes, it shows clearly that the model has two different weapons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 Is this modeling unique in your army? If you only do this on one model, then yes. Is it clear to your opponent? I would argue as long as the PSBN is clearly modeled, then yes. Does it make sense? Yes, it shows clearly that the model has two different weapons. Already preparing my counter argument ....yeah, the above seems reasonable. I just really don't want to modify the model itself and also don't want to be taxed for fielding lesser weapons. Having the PSBN hanging on a belt loop seems reasonable, and do-able without modification to the model itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savion47 Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sylvos Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 Because magnetizing the arm and having both options is too hard because.....? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 Because magnetizing the arm and having both options is too hard because.....? heh. Krakenbeard has a pile of magnetized arms just for this reason. I think Axe, Sword, Claw, Fist and Hammer right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DisruptiveConduct Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 i would love to see a Doc Oct style Krakenbeard with all of the arms attached to his torso Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 i would love to see a Doc Oct style Krakenbeard with all of the arms attached to his torso That's like 300 points of Krakenbeard being f'in metal. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 Because magnetizing the arm and having both options is too hard because.....? Because I don't want to saw up this guy: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sylvos Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 Why do you have a space marine pooping on a toilet. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 Why do you have a space marine pooping on a toilet. Oblig: 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.