Howdy scummers! We’ve seen a lot of chatter about WYSIWYG lately, and we asked our writers to get philosophical about it!
What is WYSIWYG?
WYSIWYG is an acronym: What You See Is What You Get. In terms of miniature wargaming, WYSIWYG means that a figure is modeled to reflect what it is armed with. In practice this can be vague. Do I need to model grenades? Does my opponent need to be able to tell that this ganger has mesh armor instead of flak? Probably not. As we will discuss in the roundtable, WYSIWYG is very much vibes-based.
What level of WYSIWYG do you adhere to for your own gangs?
Fowler: I have a Combat Patrol worth of Orlock gangers. Some have back magnets for Trading Post / Black Market weapons. Aside from a few very rare instances (who can REALLY tell the difference between a Van Saar Rad Gun and a Grav Gun), everything I have is a psychotic level of WYSIWYG.
Genghis Cohen: Pretty strict in terms of main weaponry, just because I enjoy converting different weapons, poses etc. so for me part of the fun is using the models I’ve made as they are. I like my converted harpoon launcher Road Sergeant, and to use him as a plasma gun would diminish my enjoyment, even if it’s a bit more effective in game. If I want to acquire a new weapon into my gang during a campaign, for me, that’s just an excuse to build a new dude.
Fowler: WYSIWYG is the best excuse to build another dude, add another magnet, or generally get weird with it.
Primaris Kevin: I magnetized the weapons for my Van Saar leaders so that I could swap out whether or not they had energy shields, and so that Crabro could have different heavy weapons. I do my best to start my gang with WYSIWYG and provide some flexibility for the leaders, but I’m not going to worry about wargear or pistols. As the campaign progresses I will generally make choices based on what the model already has. For example my Neoteks have lasguns so I’ll likely give them hotshot packs as opposed to a new weapon. Grenades, pistols, and wargear I have no issues going crazy with.
Genghis Cohen: For pistols I am a bit more flexible, my approach is still to build a model with the main weapons, e.g. if I start a model in my gang with 2 autopistols, he’s carrying them. But if I added a pistol as a back-up weapon on a fighter during a campaign, I wouldn’t bother. So I might have a fighter who started with a stub gun and fighting knife, and give them a second stub gun later on, and not bother making any changes. Holsters, or the assumption the weapon is hidden under clothing, are acceptable solutions to actually modelling pistols or knives, in my mind. Grenades, similarly, if I can find a cool bit to show off the model’s grenades, great (Enforcers have awesome bits for this) but it’s not mandatory.
Manofwaaagh: Given I currently use various squat-style models for, uh, everything, it’s fair to say I don’t adhere very strictly to WYSIWYG. That being said, I still aim to represent weapons in an appropriate way where possible, because it helps my opponents when they’re scanning the board. Obviously it’s helpful to communicate clearly with an opponent both before and during the game, to avoid “gotcha” moments brought on by modelling ambiguity.
Despite this, I definitely struggle with reading enemy model bulk sometimes: if my opponent has a fighter who is significantly taller/broader than the others around them, I find myself assuming they have higher toughness, or more armour. Often I’ve been surprised to find out that a model I assumed would be a tank is T3, W2 or similar. I think that relative size factor is something to be conscious of, even if you’re not being strict.
Genghis Cohen: Armour is definitely the big exception to my efforts. Not only is modelling armour more difficult (it interacts with all the model’s clothes and equipment, while weapons sit at the end of the arms), all the Necromunda gangs have a very defined look. Sticking with Orlocks as an example, they simply are what they are. Dudes wearing shirts, leather vests, trousers with boots, work gloves. They’ve got some little greaves on their boots and shoulder pads with a sort of back plate. It’s not really armour. But for some reason, maybe because it was part of their starting equipment in the initial 2018 release, it is completely accepted that this qualifies as “mesh armour”, which if anything is supposed to be a sci-fi chainmail equivalent. That mindset has infected me. Not only do I embrace the bulletproof vests of House Orlock, I freely hand out Armoured Undersuits to Goliaths, or slap carapace armour onto late-campaign leaders, without doing any conversion at all.
I don’t model most wargear at all, those items fall under a sort of roleplaying game umbrella of imagination for me, I don’t feel the need to represent them on the models. I might do something just for fun, like converting a model firing a grapnel launcher, but I don’t consider them WYSIWYG requirements.
Fowler: If anyone really wants to commit to the bit, consider making a WYSIWYG bag. I first did this for my Ash Waste walker, but have one for standard gangers now. I just raided my bits box and made a bunch of weapons to magnetize or blu-tac on. It may not always look perfect, but I like to be ready for anything.
Do your campaigns require WYSIWYG?
Fowler: Not really. My rule is that models should generally be representative of the type of gear category they have. Pistols are pistols, melee weapons are melee weapons, heavies are heavy, etc. A solid percentage of participants in my campaigns are new to the game, so I am very lenient when it comes to modeling. That said – if anyone asks, I always say that I prefer loadouts to be reflected on the model.
Genghis Cohen: Not at all really. For me the biggest issue/risk for a Necromunda campaign is keeping the players engaged and everyone motivated to turn up every week. Coming in hard to players, who may well not be die-hard Necro-fanatics with big collections to draw on, about what they need to do for the privilege of playing in your campaign, is a self-defeating move. That said, I would like to attract players who embrace the modelling side of the hobby, and I would always encourage people to build models that accurately reflect the game pieces.
Manofwaaagh: No requirement. I think in my groups it would generally be seen as a shame if interesting kitbashes/proxies were ruled out by strict WYSIWYG. Again, communication is key.
Fowler: I tend to hand out access to exotic weapons from the Trading Post / Black Market to gangs at the bottom of the pile. The official word is that you only need to clearly tell your opponent that your Death Maiden has a Xenarch Death Arc, but knocking out a model for it gives you a good shot at my “best bash” prize.
Genghis Cohen: I think the first, very loose, rule I would actually enforce, in the loosest sense of having a word with a player if it became an issue, is to not make life difficult for your opponent. If your models are diverging significantly from WYSIWYG, this reinforces the need to explain and remind your opponents what’s going on. If they want to activate and run into the open to close the distance toward your laspistol-waving model, you should probably tell them it ‘actually’ has a missile launcher – before they move their model. Necromunda doesn’t have secret information, players should always tell their opponent in full, when asked, about each model’s stats, skills, gear etc. But if you are proxying freely, especially for main weaponry, opponents definitely need to be proactively reminded about the difference between what they see and what the rules depict. We all know players who wait until you’ve committed to your plan before revealing some key bit of equipment that nullifies it; those guys suck and flexibility on WYSIWYG shouldn’t be a screen for such poor behaviour.
Fowler: Intent and communication are always key. Even if there aren’t any proxies in play, I like to line up my guys on their gang cards before the game and go down the line saying what they have.
Genghis Cohen: The second loose rule is just to enter into the immersive spirit of the game. You want to proxy a heavy bolter because the box only came with a heavy stubber, which is much worse? Go right ahead sir. I would always extend this courtesy, especially to a new player, or one who couldn’t reasonably buy extra models/bits, or didn’t have time to paint more models. No one can say a painted heavy stubber is less immersive than an unpainted heavy bolter. This sort of situation, where a player doesn’t really have the right bits, but they are engaging with the aesthetic side of the hobby more generally, is completely fine. Where I see this rule violated is players who just turn up with any old hodgepodge of models, and use them because they can’t be bothered to do a semi-plausible Necromunda gang. “Yeah these unpainted Van Saar with different weapons [bought them secondhand and pre-assembled) all have identical lasguns, because the Goonhammer guide said they were the best weapon] and those three [points at 3 of them with no particular discerning features] have plasma guns, and these unconverted Tyranid models are Cyber Arachnids”. On your bike mate. The point I’m waffling around here is that I will give any amount of WYSIWYG slack to someone who leans into the spirit of things. If someone just doesn’t care what anything looks like, they can go live their best life elsewhere, but I don’t really want to share my Necromunda campaign experiences with them.
Primaris Kevin: I have never enforced WYSIWYG, and I don’t think I ever would. Ideally things should at least look like they belong, so if a dude wielding a laspistol is actually toting a multi-melta I’m going to suggest the player model something else, but that’s more of a vibe check than any kind of serious oversight. I try to work with my players and help correct negative behavior that might include exploiting a model, but that kind of thing is honestly pretty rare.
How do you handle WYSIWYG as a campaign goes on?
Genghis Cohen: I personally really try to embrace it, in two different directions. First, I have some models around with higher-end weapons which I can add into the gang – in a few cases I have them on ‘alter ego’ models, e.g. I have one Orlock model with a particularly bandana-masked head and autopistols akimbo, and then another almost identical model, same head, with dual bolt pistols. The intent is to upgrade and swap the model out mid-campaign.
The other method is I just have some unassembled models lying around and I build and paint them mid-campaign, or I convert existing models, as I alter the Gang Roster. I know some people consider that a pain, the GW rules team even called it out in writing once, as a reason behind the oft-houseruled restriction on models swapping out weapons mid-campaign. But I don’t mind at all. I don’t think it should be mandatory and there are many models with basic weaponry which I have cherished campaign memories of and wouldn’t touch. But I’ve also gleefully taken the hobby knife to many a model mid-campaign. I find a real joy in attaching a scope onto an already-painted gun, or snipping a fighting knife off to replace with a power sword, and then brush-priming and painting that little bit. It’s like giving a favoured ganger a nice makeover.
Fowler: I have taken the clippers to a model before and it didn’t feel good. That said, as. serial batch painter, banging out one measly model in a week is very enjoyable to me.
Manofwaaagh: I can see the appeal, but to me physically altering a ‘finished’ model to reflect its progression is an absolute no-no — particularly if they’re likely to reset to their starting loadout next campaign. Making a souped-up version of a basic model to represent when they’re fully loaded-out though… that’s undeniably cool.
Primaris Kevin: I’m far too slow a painter to every try and make something for an ongoing campaign, so I work with what I have and focus on making sure it’s not problematic for my opponent.
Genghis Cohen: Obviously, in line with my earlier points, I don’t expect others players in a campaign to meet any particular WYSIWYG standard. Indeed, with the pace of gang growth in some campaigns, it just wouldn’t be reasonable to do so, players could hardly have time to model all the cool new stuff their gangs acquire. Bit of a wider issue there.
Does Necromunda NEED WYSIWYG?
Fowler: Maybe? If you have a small group of sickos that wants to be completely strict WYSIWYG, go for it. Otherwise, flexibility is my preferred policy. As long as I understand what
Genghis Cohen: I think it needs the shared enjoyment of modelling gangs that look cool. Because weapons are such a visible part of that, most players who enjoy the hobby side will stick fairly close to WYSIWYG naturally, and I wouldn’t sweat them about the details. I do think there is a place to be rigid if someone is taking the mickey. Got a player whose gang is always mostly equipped with Frenzon Collars and Falsehoods? Lets see your modelling solution to that, big lad.
Primaris Kevin: Need? No. Necromunda doesn’t need anything like that; you can have a perfectly successful campaign with a bunch of proxied 40k models led by a pack of chewing gum. What WYSIWYG does is allow people to have a slightly better time; there’s nothing quite like the satisfaction of having a bunch of painted and cohesive models playing on a gorgeous board. It just adds something to the experience, and I think we can all agree that it’s the little things which make Necromunda so much fun.
Manofwaaagh: Absolutely not. Before the philosophy, let’s look at the facts: this game has tons of things for which there are explicitly not any models. Sump Beasts, Warp Horrors, Demiurg energy drills, the list goes on. There is definitionally no strict WYSIWYG, because for so many things there’s no fixed notion of what you see. And the philosophy is this: Necromunda is best played as an inclusive, communicative game where the players collaborate within a competitive framework to create enjoyable experiences. Within that, the scope for understandings and proxies is basically limitless.
Conclusion
So how should your upcoming campaign handle WYSIWYG? Let the vibes tell you. Do you have a set of dedicated hobbyists who have the time and resources to run models that represent 100% of their loadouts. Go off, kings. Have some new players who you want to reel into the game? Just ask for generally representative models (pistol is a pistol, etc). If you are joining a campaign and are unsure of what WYSIWYG means for your group, ask your arbitrator.
Have any questions or feedback? Drop us a note in the comments below or email us at contact@goonhammer.com. Want articles like this linked in your inbox every Monday morning? Sign up for our newsletter. And don’t forget that you can support us on Patreon for backer rewards like early video content, Administratum access, an ad-free experience on our website and more.
