Librarium Online Forums banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
609 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I know what WYSIWYG means and entails. However I have a question. Obviously if you say you have a musician then you have to have a model to represent that. However, given that people custom convert and what not with their armies, if you have for example a WE Warhawk Rider and you only have the warhawk itself as the model representing it. Does this work? It's not like there are multiple options for this unit (aka shields/great weapons) so it is not like the unit is being misrepresented in that way. I would assume that this would not work for GW tournaments but for just following WYSIWYG, does this follow? Thanks ahead of time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
301 Posts
Well tournments aside, I would say that there are three things to remembet about situations like this:
1) Am I being consistant - if you use a different model from the normal to represent something else, then you have to be consistant through your whole army for that battle. WUSIWYG is all about letting your opponent understand what he is facing, if you change somthing, keeping it the same means that they cannot be confused by it.

2) Is there anything that it can be mistaken for? Quite simply this is about being clear what stuff is - its more relevant to proxying in stuff - e.g. "those glade riders are war riders - but this other group of glade riders are glade riders" things like that can confuse an opponent and lead to arguments in battle.

3) Is the converted/proxy model gaining an unfair advantage? Things such as different base sizes or line of sight modifications from the normal model *such as making it taller) can somtimes lead to problems and some opponents won't like it for the feeling that you are cheating them - esp. if the change benefits your army alone

in general - with the example you mention - there should be no problems in battle as the change in model is really minimal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: trodi

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
I'd say as long as all your warhawk riders look the same and you identify them as such then there's no problem. After all an unmounted warhawk is not far off a mounted one and most people shouldn't have any beef with it.
Btw 'aka' means also known as. You might be looking for an 'ie' or 'eg' instead:)
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
609 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
@Otissimo: Yeah if I had re read what my fingers had happened to type I would have caught that; thanks.

That is what I thought. The only thing I could see is that since Warhawk Riders have bows I might get beef from no little man that can shoot a bow. More specifically, I'm asking this because I will be participating in a WYSIWYG informal local gaming group tournament. Given the informal nature and the fact that I see the guy who will be in charge most weekends, I figured this wouldn't be a problem. Just wanted to get some second opinions just in case I do run into something with an opponent. Thanks again for the responces! :happy:

Along the same lines: I'm using some unfinished Glade Riders (Light Cav). I have the musician all done but not all the other riders are completed. I was thinking of running them just as the horses except for the musician to show that they have a M and that way not to be confusing with some of the riders on and some not. (Note that painting is not required for this tournament) :?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
301 Posts
well game wise it changs nothing and your opponent is informed of the equipment.
Though be prepared to take flak all day -- lighthearted flak -- jokes about deadly horses will be rife!
Their name escapes me now, but if opponents ask why there are no riders, just claim that they are the Greek horses that kill thier riders - and eat them! Deadly are they to those that try to ride them - and deadlier still are they to those that oppose them
 

·
Ahhhhh....
Joined
·
1,233 Posts
I'm sorry to say this but if you were to play a tournament game against me by only using the Warhawk (bird model) itself to represent the entire Warhawk Rider... then I would be pretty upset. It's like having a couple units of Glade Guards with no arms and heads, and you still have the guts to bring them out to a ... TOURNAMENT game. I understand there are people who's more of a gamer than a painter, but come on, can they at least be more or less a basic model builder with minimum brain activity as they glue their model kits with a clear instruction. It's just my opinion ;Y I dont mean to offend you or anything, but I do respect my opponent so I will at least bring out an army that's done its basic work as in fully built -- unlike some 12 years old kids at my local store who just glue random pieces of bits and call it something else... (the most rediculous piece they have done is calling an Empire swordsman a Tzeentch Horror by adding 4 genestealer arms in a circle around the waist :X)

.. on a side note, Warhawk rider does have spear that comes with them... you need to at least model the spear onto the hawk in anyways possible to show that it's carrying a spear (+1 str on the charge).
 

·
ISIS Secret Agent Squishy
Joined
·
1,875 Posts
The only thing I could see is that since Warhawk Riders have bows I might get beef from no little man that can shoot a bow.
Those Warhawks are deadly accurate with their Guano! :X:X
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,351 Posts
As long as the warhawk with no rider isn't mistaken for a great eagle (if it's in a unit then it shouldn't be) then I would have no problems with it :)
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
609 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
@Nekochen: No offense taken. That is why I made this topic to get people's views. Though I have to disagree with the comparison to the idiot 12 yr old haha. (That conversion just seems stupid) Worry not; my army is not just a lot of legs glued down to the correct sized bases. That would just piss any opponent off. Much of it is fully painted. With the amount of custom variations that I've seen; it didn't seem a stretch at all to just use the birds. (Well as long as you are not in an official GW thing right? haha)

@mpdscott: That was simply awesome.
 

·
King of Librarium's Tombs
Joined
·
7,143 Posts
the most rediculous piece they have done is calling an Empire swordsman a Tzeentch Horror by adding 4 genestealer arms in a circle around the waist :X
That conversion just seems stupid
Aww come on guys, hes 12, its Chaos! Who cares what they look like :p


As for WYSIWYG, proxys i dont mind using or being used whan my opponant or I and teasting something. I do prefer to have actual models though, or better variants.
The only think i dont do is have my Charioteers in my TK chariots. They fall out, and transport would be hard if they are fixed in.
To be honest playing against an unpainted army (when someone has had it for years) or units with bits missing where the guy has clearly not bothered (I have an opponant like this back home) does bug me a bit. I like seeing effort, gives me a bit more respect for my opponant then.
 

·
Firefly
Joined
·
4,209 Posts
As long as it was clear as to what the unit was, I would have no problems.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,540 Posts
Maybe it's just been the areas that I have played in, but it has always been the case for me that fantasy runs quite a bit lighter on the WYSIWYG than 40k ever has.

Assuming your warhawks lack riders merely because you haven't finished your army might rub me the wrong way, but I would still allow it since its obviously a warhawk. If it lacked the rider because thats how you want to theme all your birds, then I would definitely not mind at all. I saw a really nice WE army were all the mounted beasts lacked riders, because his theme was the forest protecting itself. So it was Eagles, Warhawks, Tree Spirits, and horses running around killing stuff.

It was actually quite cool.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top