# Fantasy equipment



## Pandawithissues... (Dec 2, 2007)

I've decided to get the fantasy players' opinion on the wysiwyg method of play, after seeing a similar discussion in the 40k section.

This can be a fairly difficult prospect for fantasy players, due to the variety of magical items available in the books, and distinctions between heavy and light armour etc are arbitrary at best.

In my opinion, wysiwyg has far less use in fantasy compared to 40k, and I always enjoy wondering what 'aces' my opponant has up his or her sleve in terms of magic items.

Any opinions?


----------



## thegreenronin (Mar 25, 2008)

I like to have the basic equipment right but am not too worried about specifics. I don't feel that there is a need to paint talismans or anythig but a model with a magic lance should have a lance.


----------



## neilbatte (Jan 2, 2008)

the only problem with wysiwyg is that many magic items are SWORD of might or HAMMER of judgement but characters often look better with different weapons and unless you are a master sculptor how do you show dwarf runes?


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

On Characters, I'm pretty solid on WYSIWYG for the most part. There must be at least 'some' indication of the item used. I've converted every character I've ever played to ensure that they don't have a dagger on the model and a great weapon in the list.

For ranks, well, it's a bit easier to get away with. The command models are never WYSIWYG, as they have different purposes, but the rest of the front rank is. I keep a second option in the rear rank. If I have a unit with Hand Weapon/Shield, then the majority of the unit will bear these, but the last rank my have Great Weapons. If I feel the urge, I'll place the GWs in front and the unit will all then count as having GWs and the initial impression of the unit suits the list entry.


----------



## swntzu (Dec 25, 2007)

I personally would ask if anything is being proxied or not WYSIWYG before the battle. Also, how would you model several of the arcane items and such.

I believe that obvious things such as weapons should be modelled but things like talismans can be left out.


----------



## Pandawithissues... (Dec 2, 2007)

> believe that obvious things such as weapons should be modelled but things like talismans can be left out.



I'm similar to this, as for the 'hammer' of jugement issue, i'm reasonably cool with it being a 'sword' of judgement if needs be. Where this doesn't fly with me is if it is something like a 'star lance' or some crap. If the weapon has some effects the same as a non magic weapon of its type, then that specific type of weapon should be on the model. (If that makes any sense to any of you!)


----------



## neilbatte (Jan 2, 2008)

yeah its pretty much how i play and any units that might get a bit mixed up(i have 30 halfling archers i use as human archers and 20 miscelaneous halflings in my free company) i always let my opponent know beforehand to save any arguments


----------



## Lord Sinkoran (Dec 23, 2006)

i go as far as if they have a shield then i give them one or a horse things like that but i don't obses about fantasy wysiwyg


----------



## Caledor (Jan 15, 2008)

I'm not overly concerned with wysiwyg, as long as nobody takes it to the extreme. It's one thing to have a 'sword of judgement' instead of a hammer (as was mentioned above), but having a magic weapon of a completly different type, such as a magic lance represented by a hammer, is probably going a bit far. I'd say, if the item wasn't magic it should be represented by a weapon of its class. Lance to lance, magic sword/hammer/axe to hand weapon, etc. Talismans, enchanted and arcane items, for the most part I'd say their to small to be modeled anyway so I'd just ignore them.

So, I guess that as long as they make an effort to have things look right, it doesn't bother me.


----------



## swntzu (Dec 25, 2007)

Caledor has made the point that I was about to make.

As long as the in game effect of a weapon (so a hammer/sword would be a hand weapon) is the same then it's alright.

I think we all agree that common sense should prevail. GW itself advocates this!


----------



## mgtymouze (Dec 7, 2007)

swntzu said:


> I think we all agree that common sense should prevail. GW itself advocates this!


Funny they adcovate this but fail to practice when writing rules/codexes. On a serious note though I am with everyone else as far as the basic item should be modeled (hand weapon/great weapon/sheild/etc..). To avoid confusion, I will name the unit and equipment as I deploy it; i.e. 20 Longbeards with full command, great weapons, and runic standard with the rune of battle. This should be somewhat obvious ,except for the runic standard, due to the grey bearded models and big honker axes. Sometimes this does reduce confusion, but ticks me off when the jackass asks every round what each unit is equiped with.


----------



## swntzu (Dec 25, 2007)

That's why you should only play people who know the game relatively well!

I agree that GW shouldn't use this as an excuse for producing badly written rules. However we (for the most part) have brains. We should use them!


----------

