Jump to content
TauntaunScout

Vehicle upgrades: WYSIWYG?

Recommended Posts

On 1/15/2020 at 9:05 PM, Nobler said:

I hate to resurrect this thread, but has there been any official answer to this question? I bought into this game by picking up some pre-assembled squads second-hand, including 3 AT-RTs, one of which has its gun glued on and two others without any weapon at all.   Do I need to find a way to un-glue that gun if I want to switch it out, and what can I do for the other two walkers since I don't have any weapons for their models at all.  I was thinking I could identify what they are using with some sort of decal or sticker on the base. (like a fireball on the base of the one with a flamethrower, etc) 

There is no WYSIWYG rule in Legion. There isn't technically an official ruling as far as I'm aware; the rule just doesn't exist at all to begin with.

Just don't do intentionally confusing things like "this ATRT is modeled with a flamer, but it has a laser cannon; this ATRT is modeled with a laser cannon, but actually has a flamer; etc...". Aside from that, feel free to model all your RTs with laser cannons if you like, and then use the card to denote what you have. I magnetized all of mine so I can swap the guns, but that's personal preference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some tournaments may have stricter rules about WYSIWYG, since there is no "official statement" besides what can be found in the Official Tournament rules (which basically boil down to: unit has to be identifiable as the unit). All other upgrades are represented by the cards, and there should be a clear indicator as to which cards match up with which models on the field (such as the ID Tokens) and this IS in the rules under ID Tokens: 

"If an army has multiple units with the same name, it can become difficult to keep track of which unit has which upgrades. To help both players distinguish multiple units of the same name, when deploying units, place a unique ID token near the base of the unit leader of each unit. Then, place each unit’s matching ID token on its unit card."

Adepticon for instance has a "Model Policy" that they apply to every wargame, which includes things like 3 colour minimums, and WYSIWYG, none of which are actually required by FFG.

FFG considers painting to be optional (I wonder if that will change now that there are official paint sets sold by FFG? But I digress). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We glued both driver and gunner to the tank, as well as the spare dlt beside the hatch. Was tempted to magnetize but just went all in and let the cards decide. Magnetized ATRT and will probably magnetize an unassembled dewback to some degree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know the official ruling but the ones ive seen make sense. I never was a fan of forcing folks into wysiwyg. To be, its a jerk move. If I can look at your list or your cards, I know what you have (just dont be a jerk and not remind me if I lose track in game absently thinking it is what is modeled because that also would be a jerk move). I prefer the "rule of cool".  I would never force an opponant into it even in a tourney.

That being said, I have always understood that for many, the win is more important than the fun and always done my best to wysiwyg on my own models just to cover my butt in tourneys.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, EVIL INC said:

 

That being said, I have always understood that for many, the win is more important than the fun and always done my best to wysiwyg on my own models just to cover my butt in tourneys.

 

I rather like WYSIWYG for various reasons. But the overall direction of this thread's resurrection reminds me of these two thought provoking pieces.

https://warhammerforadults.blogspot.com/p/why-is-it-called-warhammer-for-adults.html

http://drbargle.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-old-school-is-pathetic-rant.html

They're about Warhammer and the Oldhammer movement but I think they are good for all minis games. Personally for me "old" GW games means 2nd/5th 40k/Fantasy, because during the time of RT and 3rd ed WFB I was busily playing WEG Star Wars and FASA's Battletech. Partly because those were far more readily available in the USA back then.

For me, if I can model everything just so, it's really cool and fun looking. But I also feel like the entire purpose of a card-based upgrade system is so that you can swap things in and out. Ie, the current FFG custom of upgrade cards, and the "wargear" and "magic item" cards of my beloved 1990's big box era GW core games.

Edited by TauntaunScout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I started in rogue trader and did not get into the tourney scene till a later edition. That was when I came into the wysiwyg thing. I like doing it because of the challenge but I also realize the cost of doing it and how that can put many players at a disadvantage. I can understand wysiwyg because it DOES make it easier and makes it less to keep track of and I like the ability to magnatize (after I learned how to do it well, I went nuts with it and think it is cool to switch stuff about). Not everyone has that level of skill or the cash to buy extra models and there is always gonna be "that guy" who will abuse it to gain advantage over those less skilled or fortunate. To me, the game and the hobby itself is more important than the immediate win.

I even enjoyed using models from wargames as my D&D and rpg characters and magnatize them. I really like that this game evidently does not force it on us leaving it optional. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What size magnets have people used for the BARC speeder's side car?  I am about to buy some 2mm and 3mm magnets for various projects and didn't know if I need anything bigger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2020 at 12:05 AM, Nobler said:

I hate to resurrect this thread, but has there been any official answer to this question? I bought into this game by picking up some pre-assembled squads second-hand, including 3 AT-RTs, one of which has its gun glued on and two others without any weapon at all.   Do I need to find a way to un-glue that gun if I want to switch it out, and what can I do for the other two walkers since I don't have any weapons for their models at all.  I was thinking I could identify what they are using with some sort of decal or sticker on the base. (like a fireball on the base of the one with a flamethrower, etc) 

That is literally the tournament document rule:

“Players must identify multiple units with the same name in their army—and its corresponding unit card and any associated upgrades—with a token, a sticker, paint, or any other form of marking.“

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

I also like all painted WYSIWYG because it simulates going to war with army you have, not the army you want. Like I think Schwarzkopf said. 

That was Rumsfeld making excuses for not having proper body armor for troops and proper undercarriage armor for humvees.  
Also, I ain't buying multiple occupier tanks for different load-outs.  The cosmetic different between the DLT and the RT-97C is minimal when you're up above the board anyway.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

I also like all painted WYSIWYG because it simulates going to war with army you have, not the army you want. Like I think Schwarzkopf said. 

Nigel Stillman wrote something similar in White Dwarf around the late nineties. I don't think he has the same gravitas but it made sense to me and informed my gaming for a couple of decades. That and not having the money or painting speed to add every new shiny thing to a force.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Zrob314 said:

That was Rumsfeld making excuses for not having proper body armor for troops and proper undercarriage armor for humvees.  
Also, I ain't buying multiple occupier tanks for different load-outs.  The cosmetic different between the DLT and the RT-97C is minimal when you're up above the board anyway.  

For tanks, it's rather easy to magnetize...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Zrob314 said:

That was Rumsfeld making excuses for not having proper body armor for troops and proper undercarriage armor for humvees.  
Also, I ain't buying multiple occupier tanks for different load-outs.  The cosmetic different between the DLT and the RT-97C is minimal when you're up above the board anyway.  

I knew it was something to do with Iraq...

As far as Legion goes, I tend to collect vehicles with assorted (glued in) weapon load-outs for fun, but I don't bother playing them WYSIWYG unless it's coincidental. Like it would look weird to make an AT-ST with missing guns so mine have the 3 movie guns plus one of them has a mortar. But I rarely take anything other than an 'S4 and an '88.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2020 at 2:23 PM, Alan Noir said:

We glued both driver and gunner to the tank, as well as the spare dlt beside the hatch. Was tempted to magnetize but just went all in and let the cards decide. Magnetized ATRT and will probably magnetize an unassembled dewback to some degree

Just built my Dewback. I've magnetized a lot of suff but I don't think you need to magnetize the Dew. It comes with two torsos (one for the flame-rifle or shock prod and one for the two other rifles) and the arms can just be popped in and out. Works just fine without magnets. I was even in the process of whittling out one of the arm sockets to fit a magnet when I realized it.

Share this post


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

Just built my Dewback. I've magnetized a lot of suff but I don't think you need to magnetize the Dew. It comes with two torsos (one for the flame-rifle or shock prod and one for the two other rifles) and the arms can just be popped in and out. Works just fine without magnets. I was even in the process of whittling out one of the arm sockets to fit a magnet when I realized it.

Thanks for the tip. Won't be starting until the correct base replacement arrives

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2020 at 6:41 AM, Katarn said:

Nigel Stillman wrote something similar in White Dwarf around the late nineties. I don't think he has the same gravitas but it made sense to me and informed my gaming for a couple of decades. That and not having the money or painting speed to add every new shiny thing to a force.

 

 

 

Yes, an idealistic and utterly impractical sentiment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

It's highly practical. You paint your collection and you use it. Much more practical than chasing the meta at the end of the rainbow.

It’s not terribly practical from a fun standpoint to place price check points where only rich obsessives can actually play.

It’s a game, not a re-enacting. WYSIWYG is cute and all, but when the rubber meets the road, it’s superfluous to playing that game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Derrault said:

It’s not terribly practical from a fun standpoint to place price check points where only rich obsessives can actually play.

It’s a game, not a re-enacting. WYSIWYG is cute and all, but when the rubber meets the road, it’s superfluous to playing that game. 

Beating rich obsessives with a limited force can be fun. Look at The Joker.

Some people are playing 'historical' forces, some are playing a limited role playing game. Some find being forced to play with names characters is a positive, some a negative.

Some enjoy the aesthetic of the game so painting and, to a lesser extent, WYSIWYG is quite important. Not to the point of ruining the game, but the desire is there.

Some people enjoy number crunching and finding efficiency. Some enjoy discovering combos. Some find these things entirely dull.

I think one of the reasons behind a lot of games' successes is that they can appeal to a divergent range of people and they can still enjoy them with one another which is why it's often easier to find a game of 40k than a game of chess. I can play an unpainted spam list of the latest wonderweapon with the combined value of my monthly rent and still have a good game. Perhaps not the best game, but there wouldn't be a lack of fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Derrault said:

It’s not terribly practical from a fun standpoint to place price check points where only rich obsessives can actually play.

It’s a game, not a re-enacting. WYSIWYG is cute and all, but when the rubber meets the road, it’s superfluous to playing that game. 

Depends on the game how much it impacts the fun, in my experience. Some systems work better for it than others. As for rich obsessives, I don't think either 40k (in its current incarnation), Imperial Assault, or SW: Legion requires that you be one to "actually play" even if you are strict about models. One of my favorite things about SW:L is, 2 core sets, 2 Specialists boxes, and 4 operatives is all you'll ever need to play.

Models (just use paper standees) and dice (pull slips of paper out of a bag) and scenery (have a color coded map) are all superfluous, but when the rubber meets that particular road, are we even still playing a miniatures game?

I have a sliding scale of WYSIWYG. Little skirmish games with only a handful of models I am halfways strict about. In the case of many of those games, it's the only thing between your games and a stale series of "best" weapon combinations. Once someone in the group cracks it, it's hard to put that genie back in the bottle without practically re-writing the game from the ground up. But we look at the overall intent, the likliehood to cause confusion, etc. An armored knight with sword and shield, being played as an unarmored vampire dual wielding two maces is right out. There's no excuse for that! Whereas, we might use a handgonner with a pavise as a crossbowman with light armor if the game has no rules for handgonnes. Both fill roughly the same tactical niche (slow loading, armor piercing), and cowering behind a portable wall gives roughly the same protection as wearing a chain shirt and iron hat.

W40k is definitely my 2nd strictest one, probably because of the dizzying array of options for it. In that game, if something is modeled then it 99% of the time must be played as exactly what it is. Grenades don't have to modeled. Holstered pistols, especially on heroes, can be any type of pistol. Wargear cards and magic item cards (if I'm playing 2nd edition with high school friends) don't have to be modeled. If we're really in a bind to make a legal, reasonably WYSIWYG, force for the game, then painting is decider. Better to use 10 fully painted Imperial Guard Stormtroopers as regular guardsmen, than to pull a grey squad off the workbench. Overall, we see the rules as opportunities for modelling, we don't see the models as necessary evils to using more maths.

For Legion I figure if it has a card to alter a model, it doesn't need to be modeled correctly. This means all vehicle hardpoints, grenades, etc. A squad heavy, or the actual type of unit, should be modeled correctly, cause they give you enough of those models.

Warhammer Fantasy and/or Kings of War (I do play AoS) is probaly lowest in the scale. Who cares if a few of the spearmen have axes? You can still plainly see what the unit is supposed to be, and often those kinds of changes are deliberate aesthetic achievements. I also don't worry too much about equipment for heroes, ie, a mounted hero leading a unit of lancers can be equipped with a lance even if the model doesn't have one, a dismounted knight can wear light armor so as to keep up on foot even if the model is covered head to toe in plate... We'll just pretend his surcoat is a silk covered padded jack for foot service or something.

When I play ye olde leadde games, it's near-anarchy. D6 Star Wars never even attempted to provide models for, nor ever suggested in print, that you should use WYSIWYG. With that game, and Battletech, Dragon Rampant, etc. and using minis for RPG combat encounters, it gets pretty fast and loose. But those game's type of rules, and available (or more likely, unavailable) loadouts of minis, almost necessitate it.

 

Edited by TauntaunScout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Katarn said:

Beating rich obsessives with a limited force can be fun. Look at The Joker.

Some people are playing 'historical' forces, some are playing a limited role playing game. Some find being forced to play with names characters is a positive, some a negative.

Some enjoy the aesthetic of the game so painting and, to a lesser extent, WYSIWYG is quite important. Not to the point of ruining the game, but the desire is there.

Some people enjoy number crunching and finding efficiency. Some enjoy discovering combos. Some find these things entirely dull.

I think one of the reasons behind a lot of games' successes is that they can appeal to a divergent range of people and they can still enjoy them with one another which is why it's often easier to find a game of 40k than a game of chess. I can play an unpainted spam list of the latest wonderweapon with the combined value of my monthly rent and still have a good game. Perhaps not the best game, but there wouldn't be a lack of fun.

I enjoy playing a specific scenario as much as the next person, but it would be unfair of me to force my poorer opponents, who cannot afford to purchase multiple extra copies of the same set if they wanted to play something different. 

Insisting that poor players can’t play a game legal list based purely on optional aesthetics is to insist that simply by virtue of being poor they aren’t allowed to play the same list I can. At that point it becomes a meta game advantage; it’s not playing the game.

Make no mistake, this isn’t a discussion just about aesthetics, it’s really about what is fair given the out of game resources that the people playing the game have.

In a very practical sense, the idea of WYSIWYG acts as a pure economic block to those who simply can’t afford to play under those arbitrary restrictions. Which is why it’s a cute notion, because it is impractical when applied to the idea of a fair game.

@TauntaunScout 

So, as a hypothetical, if the model has a pistol on its hip, and a sword in its hand, would the model be required to have bought both upgrades?

If not, what’s the difference between that and having different upgrades that could have been modeled?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Derrault said:

I enjoy playing a specific scenario as much as the next person, but it would be unfair of me to force my poorer opponents, who cannot afford to purchase multiple extra copies of the same set if they wanted to play something different. 

Insisting that poor players can’t play a game legal list based purely on optional aesthetics is to insist that simply by virtue of being poor they aren’t allowed to play the same list I can. At that point it becomes a meta game advantage; it’s not playing the game.

Absolutely. I'd not force my ideas on my opponent. That wouldn't be unfair, it would just make me a terrible person to have a game with. 

I apply my standards, such as they are, to myself alone.  The only person to admonish is myself. I build an army my way, my opponent builds it their way and we both have an enjoyable game.  How tournaments run is someone else's business.

I also don't tend to bother with the cards beyond rules reference. If it's on an army list and its on the model, where appropriate, I don't see a problem. Some might I suppose but they'll get over it. I find having a card for every trooper unit clutters the table.

 

Edited by Katarn

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...