Maybe I'm just looking past it but I can't find an answer in the rules. Do vehicle weapons need to be WYSIWYG? Since they use cards that are visible to your opponent if they want to check? Example: You model one of each of the three AT-RT guns, but play them all as flame throwers. Or, you model an AT-ST with all the guns, but only use one or two in-game.

There is no WYSIWYG rule in Legion, your cards define your build.

I don't believe that this is the case. FFG wants the game to be simple to get into which can be seen from the way they do the troopers with fixed poses. To make things WYSIWYG would require a level of modeling that isn't consistent with that goal or a huge investment, say you wanted to run a 3 AT-RT list, you would need to magnetize the weapons or buy 9 AT-RTs to allow you to experiment with different combinations. As I said if they were going for that level of fidelity they would have probably also given us more customizable troopers.

18 minutes ago, jcmonson said:

I don't believe that this is the case. FFG wants the game to be simple to get into which can be seen from the way they do the troopers with fixed poses. To make things WYSIWYG would require a level of modeling that isn't consistent with that goal or a huge investment, say you wanted to run a 3 AT-RT list, you would need to magnetize the weapons or buy 9 AT-RTs to allow you to experiment with different combinations. As I said if they were going for that level of fidelity they would have probably also given us more customizable troopers.

Excellent. I am more of a "paint one of each for collecting reasons" kind of person. Thanks.

1 hour ago, jcmonson said:

I don't believe that this is the case. FFG wants the game to be simple to get into which can be seen from the way they do the troopers with fixed poses. To make things WYSIWYG would require a level of modeling that isn't consistent with that goal or a huge investment, say you wanted to run a 3 AT-RT list, you would need to magnetize the weapons or buy 9 AT-RTs to allow you to experiment with different combinations.

The single pose models with all special weapons able to be built actually advocates more for the WYSIWYG approach. The AT-ST is the only complicated magnetization and there only for the mortar. The AT-RTs just require a magnet placed on the hill and on the end of the weapon stick. Every other vehicle weapon is pushfit and doesn't require magnets.

From the tournament rules: "They cannot modify a mini or official terrain in any way that would create significant confusion about which unit or terrain type the mini or terrain product represents." So fielding an AT-RT with a laser canon modeled on it, but the flamethrower upgrade could be considered as creating "confusion." Of course, this only applies to official tournaments.

Why wouldn't FFG want us to buy 9 AT-RTs? That's 6 more sales. Prior to glueing, it's best to do experimentation in casual games with proxies in my experience.

It is very easy to magnetize the different weapon options, so one is able to change between games.

4 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

The single pose models with all special weapons able to be built actually advocates more for the WYSIWYG approach. The AT-ST is the only complicated magnetization and there only for the mortar. The AT-RTs just require a magnet placed on the hill and on the end of the weapon stick. Every other vehicle weapon is pushfit and doesn't require magnets.

From the tournament rules: "They cannot modify a mini or official terrain in any way that would create significant confusion about which unit or terrain type the mini or terrain product represents." So fielding an AT-RT with a laser canon modeled on it, but the flamethrower upgrade could be considered as creating "confusion." Of course, this only applies to official tournaments.

Why wouldn't FFG want us to buy 9 AT-RTs? That's 6 more sales. Prior to glueing, it's best to do experimentation in casual games with proxies in my experience.

I didn't say it was complicated, it is just more on the modeling side of things than FFG seems to be aiming for. It goes along with there being no requirement for the minis to be painted and other such things, none of that is hard but it does create a barrier to playing the game. As I mentioned, I believe that if that was the direction that FFG was going for they would have also released troopers with customizable poses as well.

As for the tournament rules, I would argue that putting a laser canon on the AT-RT is not "modifying" it as you are only using components provided by FFG, and you are using them in the intended location. I do admit that it can be ambiguous and I could very well be wrong on this count.

FFG would want us to buy 9 AT-RT's but I'm willing be bet that no one would buy 9 and they would loose out on more sales than they would make up for.

This is a silly question.

As a newbie to assembly-required games (coming straight from Xwing), I never heard of magnetization when assembling my core set of Legion. As such, if someone wants to be a jerk and tell me I can’t run a flamethrower ATRT because I glued the Gatling onto it, they will rapidly find themselves looking for a new gaming partner.

10 minutes ago, jcmonson said:

I didn't say it was complicated, it is just more on the modeling side of things than FFG seems to be aiming for. It goes along with there being no requirement for the minis to be painted and other such things, none of that is hard but it does create a barrier to playing the game. As I mentioned, I believe that if that was the direction that FFG was going for they would have also released troopers with customizable poses as well.

As for the tournament rules, I would argue that putting a laser canon on the AT-RT is not "modifying" it as you are only using components provided by FFG, and you are using them in the intended location. I do admit that it can be ambiguous and I could very well be wrong on this count.

FFG would want us to buy 9 AT-RT's but I'm willing be bet that no one would buy 9 and they would loose out on more sales than they would make up for.

At any point FFG convinces someone to buy more than 3, they’ve already won on standard projections.

I use the cards alone to determine. My AT-ST model has everything because it looks better that way.

11 minutes ago, jcmonson said:

I didn't say it was complicated, it is just more on the modeling side of things than FFG seems to be aiming for. It goes along with there being no requirement for the minis to be painted and other such things, none of that is hard but it does create a barrier to playing the game. As I mentioned, I believe that if that was the direction that FFG was going for they would have also released troopers with customizable poses as well.

As for the tournament rules, I would argue that putting a laser canon on the AT-RT is not "modifying" it as you are only using components provided by FFG, and you are using them in the intended location. I do admit that it can be ambiguous and I could very well be wrong on this count.

FFG would want us to buy 9 AT-RT's but I'm willing be bet that no one would buy 9 and they would loose out on more sales than they would make up for.

Why does customizable poses have to be part of WYSIWYG? There is no correlation in my mind, especially as Warmahordes (which is INCREDIBLY anti-conversion and all about the WYSIWYG) is single pose(ish) models. Single poses units are the epitome of WYSIWYG as all units of the same type consist of the exact same models. Multipose models are significantly harder to manufacture/design than mono-pose, which translates into extra cost in both time and money. FFG knew Star Wars Legion would sell either way, and has a ton of experience with single pose human(ish) models from their board games, so why bother producing customizable pose miniatures?

The fact that FFG produced hardpoint mounting covers for the "cheek" weapons of the AT-ST, and that said covers and the weapons they replace have a mounting rod rather than ball and joint, or just flat mounting (like the Mortar) indicates some amount of WYSIWYG planning. Same for the Airspeeder, which could have had both weapons look incredibly similar and then represented by a single weapon model, or again, used a flat mounting. The only two exceptions to this are the AT-RT and the Mortar launcher. Both of which are fairly easy introduction to magnetization conversions. Heck, magnetizing the weapons on an AT-RT after gluing one on isn't super difficult either, just use the same rod for each weapon.

What does FFG care about beginner modelers messing up a model and needing to buy a spare? Again, selling models is only source of revenue for Legion. I've seen people build illegal squads from army boxes before because they didn't study the rule book closely enough and thought that the models looked cool/that the box contents were a perfect representation of the squad options.

I don't disagree with you about the meaning of "modification," but that doesn't mean everyone else is that reasonable. It could be argued that adding any of the weapons to the model is a "modification" from the base model. Not necessarily argued WELL mind you, but it is possible, as arguably only the cards technically matter. Given the two hour time limit for games that tournaments have, the players are likely to be under some significant amount of stress (seeing as most local games take longer than that), so having weapons perfectly represented will be a bigger time saver for your opponent, and result in less time spent asking "what weapon does that AT-RT have again?"

Well that's the thing. How much variation is reasonable? I would say that having 1 of each AT-RT, and saying that the flame one is a laser cannon with long range comm link, and the gatling gun is a flamethrower, but the laser cannon really is a laser cannon, would be intentionally messing with people. Whereas saying "all three have flame throwers" or saying "all three have what they're modeled with" would be fairly straightforward.

I find magnets... to be not for me. I've used them in the past and don't want to go that route.

"Why does customizable poses have to be part of WYSIWYG?": Because then they can sell you more infantry models. In 40k you'd have to choose between gluing on this gun or that, Legion just gives you a spare gun with the other gun.

It has more to do with the amount of Modeling that FFG is expecting players to go through to get their miniatures ready to play. The AT-RT and AT-ST would be the only two models that would not be playable in every configuration out of the box if it was WYSIWYG. Every other unit FFG has gone out of their way to reduce the amount of modeling needed to get playing.

2 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

Well that's the thing. How much variation is reasonable? I would say that having 1 of each AT-RT, and saying that the flame one is a laser cannon with long range comm link, and the gatling gun is a flamethrower, but the laser cannon really is a laser cannon, would be intentionally messing with people. Whereas saying "all three have flame throwers" or saying "all three have what they're modeled with" would be fairly straightforward.

I find magnets... to be not for me. I've used them in the past and don't want to go that route.

"Why does customizable poses have to be part of WYSIWYG?": Because then they can sell you more infantry models. In 40k you'd have to choose between gluing on this gun or that, Legion just gives you a spare gun with the other gun.

I agree, the issue is how to enforce the deliberately confusing situation and the "I like the look of the laser cannon best on the models" cases equally and fairly. The easiest fix in either situation would be to use the number tokens (or very distinctive paint), much how one should indicate the different upgrades on three AT-RTs with the same weapons, or other units where the there is a non-modeled upgrade that has been taken. Which is probably the right answer anyway.

That's fair, I found the AT-RTs fairly simple to magnetize in relation to other models where I had to drill attachment points for the magnets, but I also understand that is not for everyone.

I understand that customization CAN be part of WYSIWYG, but they are not intrinsically linked was my point. 40k is a bad comparison in my opinion anyway, as many of the boxes do not even contain all of the possible weapons options for the unit. If FFG wanted to go that route, they could still have had single pose models, but allow you to only build one of the two weapons specialist out of the box, as opposed to providing a completely spare model. And for that matter, providing enough models in the Commando/Scout boxes that both a Heavy Weapons team and a normal squad can be taken. Two Specialist units in a single box was a pleasant surprise.

Warmahordes is WYSIYG single pose infantry, and I know it has kits that could be built to represent one of two different units. So in order to switch over to the other unit in your list, you either have to be able to swap the weapons/equipment on the built unit, or purchase two boxes to build each option. Additionally, the WH40k models are relatively easy to convert because with all the extra customization options in the box you can often find the parts from someone at your local club OR a secondary bits seller.

2 hours ago, jcmonson said:

It has more to do with the amount of Modeling that FFG is expecting players to go through to get their miniatures ready to play. The AT-RT and AT-ST would be the only two models that would not be playable in every configuration out of the box if it was WYSIWYG. Every other unit FFG has gone out of their way to reduce the amount of modeling needed to get playing.

And WYSIWYG or not, those models STILL don't require a lot of modeling to get started. The extra modeling only comes in if/when one wants to change their list in a purely WYSIWYG environment. I don't think this IS a pure WYSIWYG environment, but the argument could be made in a tournament setting, by a particularly pedantic player. Again, casual settings, just make sure it is clear and don't deliberately obfuscate and I at least wouldn't have an issue (EDIT: Which in my opinion SHOULD probably also be sufficient in a tournament setting barring any actual official rules to the contrary, my main argument is that the "ease of modeling" is not a good indicator of WYSIWYG or not. Arguably WYSIWYG is much easier from a gaming perspective than trying to remember what card goes with what model).

17 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

I understand that customization CAN be part of WYSIWYG, but they are not intrinsically linked was my point.

I don't think they're intrinsically linked, but linking them often results in selling spare model kits, that people wouldn't otherwise buy. At least that's how it shakes out in other games I've played.

For me with AT-RT, the poster putty I used to "pin" it to a pen while painting stayed on, residually. I was gonna do a magnet, but leaving on the remains of the putty has worked just fine for the past few months. And while swapping out between two guns, (both having some residue on them) the hole in the at-rt has picked up some of it as well it seems, doubling the effect.

FYI though, I'm not "man-handling" the mini, so for you more aggressive types this may not work.

29 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

I agree, the issue is how to enforce the deliberately confusing situation and the "I like the look of the laser cannon best on the models" cases equally and fairly. The easiest fix in either situation would be to use the number tokens (or very distinctive paint), much how one should indicate the different upgrades on three AT-RTs with the same weapons, or other units where the there is a non-modeled upgrade that has been taken. Which is probably the right answer anyway.

I think this is really the heart of the issue. My solution for enforcement would be the following: if a player has a correctly modeled option available, they must use that model. Otherwise, numbered tokens can be used to indicate which model is associated with which cards.

This prevents situations where someone wants to manipulate the system by saying: "the one modeled with a rotary is actually a laser, the laser is actually a flamer, and the flamer is actually a rotary." Because since they have the appropriate options available, they must associate them correctly.

And it shouldn't affect those who build their models based on entirely on appearance.

3 minutes ago, nashjaee said:

I think this is really the heart of the issue. My solution for enforcement would be the following: if a player has a correctly modeled option available, they must use that model. Otherwise, numbered tokens can be used to indicate which model is associated with which cards.

This prevents situations where someone wants to manipulate the system by saying: "the one modeled with a rotary is actually a laser, the laser is actually a flamer, and the flamer is actually a rotary." Because since they have the appropriate options available, they must associate them correctly.

And it shouldn't affect those who build their models based on entirely on appearance.

I agree this would be the best way to do it.

34 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

I don't think they're intrinsically linked, but linking them often results in selling spare model kits, that people wouldn't otherwise buy. At least that's how it shakes out in other games I've played.

You can still get the same effect with single pose by requiring a specific model for a specific role. Spare bits also have an additional cost to produce, which raises the cost of the product, and they may need to use a different material. Right now, the price per model is significantly cheaper than 40k. Adding additional bits of plastic which is more material, more packaging time (since each bit comes pre-cut off of any sprue and some models are partially assembled), and greater chance for errors.

14 minutes ago, nashjaee said:

I think this is really the heart of the issue. My solution for enforcement would be the following: if a player has a correctly modeled option available, they must use that model. Otherwise, numbered tokens can be used to indicate which model is associated with which cards.

I agree, this is a good fix and should be the polite way of playing it. Hopefully there aren't too many WAAC players out there, but I suppose I'll find out from the NOVA open reports.

1 hour ago, Caimheul1313 said:

....

Hopefully there aren't too many WAAC players out there, but I suppose I'll find out from the NOVA open reports.

What does WAAC mean?

Win At All Cost

10 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

From the tournament rules: "They cannot modify a mini or official terrain in any way that would create significant confusion about which unit or terrain type the mini or terrain product represents." So fielding an AT-RT with a laser canon modeled on it, but the flamethrower upgrade could be considered as creating "confusion."

But it could not be considered "modifying" the mini. That is a way the instructions tell you to assemble the mini out of the box.

5 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

You can still get the same effect with single pose by requiring a specific model for a specific role. Spare bits also have an additional cost to produce, which raises the cost of the product, and they may need to use a different material. Right now, the price per model is significantly cheaper than 40k. Adding additional bits of plastic which is more material, more packaging time (since each bit comes pre-cut off of any sprue and some models are partially assembled), and greater chance for errors.

The costs of injection molded plastic pieces has been greatly exaggerated by GW apologists over the years. At any rate, what I am suggesting is that if FFG were trying to use WYSIWYG to drive sales, we'd get FEWER pieces in the box, not more.

1 hour ago, TauntaunScout said:

The costs of injection molded plastic pieces has been greatly exaggerated by GW apologists over the years. At any rate, what I am suggesting is that if FFG were trying to use WYSIWYG to drive sales, we'd get FEWER pieces in the box, not more.

Except that customizable poses tend to entail more pieces being in the kit to provide for multiple customization options (backpacks, extra arms, spare heads what have you). FFG has already shown themselves to be MORE generous than many other companies by having the additional model in the Commando/Scout Trooper boxes, as besides allowing players to field both a normal squad and a Heavy weapons team from a single box the fifth basic infantry model serves no other purpose. Additionally, every infantry model armed with a special weapon has the squad's basic weapon modeled on it, either in a backpack or a holster. So I still don't understand what customization has to do with WYSIWYG, as I know of quite a few miniatures games that require specific single pose metal miniatures to be used, and in many cases require completely different models to represent different weapons options. With Legion, FFG provides the customer with everything they need to field a unit and precisely represent it on the board, but have steered away from the "force additional purchases for single cards/models" marketing scheme.

If we are going to use customization as an indication of WYSIWYG, then I will point out that the AT-ST, AT-RT, and T-47 are customizable. The AT-ST has posable legs and "head," weapon options with plugs for the "cheek" mounting points so only the gun on the actual card is by default on the miniature. The AT-RTs and T-47 allow the assembler to select what weapon to put on the model. WarmaHordes has very stringent WYSIWYG tournament rules, and many of their kits can be built as one of a handful of units, based purely upon which weapon arms you attach. If you glue a set of arms on, then you can only field that model as one specific unit per the official tournament rules.

Accepting that the cost of the additional plastic is negligible in relation to the profit margins of a single box (especially since FFG uses such large boxes so no arguments to be made about increased packaging), designing a set of models with fully interchangeable arms, heads, torsos and legs I would imagine takes more time than sculpting a single model and then figuring out how to cast the arms and maybe the backpack separate. Additionally, how much extra time would it take to get the models approved by the license holder. If the license enforcement here is anything like the RPGs, then from the interviews I've heard with the FFG art directors, everything that represents something from Star Wars has to be approved by Disney. I contest that a group of single pose models are much quicker to approve than every possible combination of parts from a customizable box. Quicker approval times mean quicker to market, and new models equate to more money.

2 hours ago, Turan said:

But it could not be considered "modifying" the mini. That is a way the instructions tell you to assemble the mini out of the box.

Arguably (and I admit I am being pedantic here and would NOT actually use this argument) you modify the miniature in the act of assembly, as the miniature's original form was a pile of loose parts. I agree it SHOULD not be considered "modifying," but a (poor) case could be made. Looking only at the directions from the Learn to play guide, I do not see the diagram actually instructing you to glue any of the weapons on, just showing the various weapon options. Which is fitting, as nothing prevents you from fielding an AT-RT with just the default blaster.

Regardless, I will admit that there is nothing explicitly in the rules saying "Legion is WYSIWYG," only that the intention is for your opponent to be able to easily identify what unit and upgrades cards each of your models are supposed to represent. Whether you do that through paint, modelling the correct weapon on the vehicle, or using cardboard numbered indicators is entirely up to you (as far as I can tell). Where I disagree is in using the design of the kits to argue that Legion is not WYSIWYG, and will happily continue to discuss that point should anyone wish.

11 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

I do not see the diagram actually instructing you to glue any of the weapons on

And really, you don't have to - in my test fitting, everything fit well enough that you could insert a weapon without gluing it and remove it to change weapons for your next game. I just chose to magnetize because I didn't want to risk breaking the pegs.

I think the most salient point, and all that needs to be said, is in games that are WYSIWYG, they state it clearly in the rules. Legion does not.