Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I wanted the YMDC denizen's take on this issue (it's sorta raging in the rumours 6ed FAQ thread).

Page 61, under power weapons.
"If a model's warger says it has a power weapon which has no further special rules, look at the model to tell which type of power weapon it has:.."

Let's take Eldar Banshee or Death Cult Assassins as example... its states they're armed with POWER WEAPONS...

So, could I replace the standard stock swords with an Axe to get the Axe's profile? (AP2, Int1)???

My gut feeling is "no"... as you should use what models were given to you when you bought the sprue...

Thoughts?

I have been giving this some thought and I have come to the conclusion that, if you have the option to buy a power weapon, you are free to choose what sort of power weapon you want.

If anyone has any evidence that opposes this, I would be interested to hear it.

Yes, you are allowed to model either a Power Sword, Axe, or Maul if the model's wargear just says "Power Weapon"

But you must make note of it in your army list and have the model actually be WYSIWYG.

That same argument can be used to prevent anyone from creating and using a model that games-workshop does not currently make.

Seraphims have the option to buy Melta Pistols, yet GW only makes them with bolt pistols or hand flamers.

If anyone tried to tell me I cannot model my characters to represent the equipment I wish them to have, as long as it's permitted by the rules, I would not play them.

Because GW only makes some models with 1 type of power weapon does not prevent you from addressing the issue yourself as long as their still using a power weapon and not suddenly a thunder hammer or chain fist.

This is clearly an invitation to model your own wargear as you want, and still have an ingame benifit by doing so. My librarian has a really axe, but in 5th it was just a simple Force Weapon. Now its a Force Axe, thats much cooler.

You are free to model whatever you want.

I would just keep in mind that when the Eldar codex comes out, there's a 99% chance that Howling Banshees will not be able to take Power Axes.

Why?

Polonius wrote:I would just keep in mind that when the Eldar codex comes out, there's a 99% chance that Howling Banshees will not be able to take Power Axes.

There's already Banshee models with Power Axes, why would they invalidate them?

pretre wrote:

Polonius wrote:I would just keep in mind that when the Eldar codex comes out, there's a 99% chance that Howling Banshees will not be able to take Power Axes.

There's already Banshee models with Power Axes, why would they invalidate them?

There is (one) banshee model with an axe, and its the exarch. That model is also long OOP.
http://www.solegends.com/citcat94/cat1994134-01.htm

The regular banshees have always had swords, and the past two codicies/version of models, GW has given the Exarch a two handed not-axe weapon, so Polonius is saying that it's probably a safer bet to say they will stick with swords again when the new Eldar codex comes out someday.

It should be fine to model whatever you want.
Until the new codex (re)defines them for you, wysiwyg, and there is no issue.

Hot damn and here I was converting all my Iron hands power swords with omnissian axe bits... and odd turn of events! Bionic +1 to strength here I come!

In the instance of death cult assassins, does their wargear list them as having 2 power weapons? ( don't have that dex)

If so could a player using them model 1 sword and 1 axe and then choose which to use before they strike?

whitedragon wrote:

pretre wrote:

Polonius wrote:I would just keep in mind that when the Eldar codex comes out, there's a 99% chance that Howling Banshees will not be able to take Power Axes.

There's already Banshee models with Power Axes, why would they invalidate them?

There is (one) banshee model with an axe, and its the exarch. That model is also long OOP.
http://www.solegends.com/citcat94/cat1994134-01.htm

The regular banshees have always had swords, and the past two codicies/version of models, GW has given the Exarch a two handed not-axe weapon, so Polonius is saying that it's probably a safer bet to say they will stick with swords again when the new Eldar codex comes out someday.

since Banshees have always been about high initiative, low strength power weapons, I doubt they'll be getting power axes in a revision. But stranger things have certainly happened.

What's most likely is that they'll get "Banshee Sabres" or some non-sense, which will be AP2 with no penalty.

BarBoBot wrote:In the instance of death cult assassins, does their wargear list them as having 2 power weapons? ( don't have that dex)

If so could a player using them model 1 sword and 1 axe and then choose which to use before they strike?

Yes. I am seriously contemplating converting my squad to 4 Sword/Maul, 1 Sword / Axe, 4 Crusaders with Axe.

From the way it looks you get to choose what type of power weapon you use as long as the upgrade is listed as a power weapon. GW FAQs for some of the marine armies have said to disregard any mention of power sword and use power weapon instead.

Because none of the power weapons are specialist weapons, if you have two, there's no reason to not be axe/sword. You now explicitly choose which one weapon you're attacking with in a turn and get the +1 A regardless. Thus you can either have at-Init AP3 or Init 1 Str+1 AP2 as you please on a turn by turn basis.

BarBoBot wrote:In the instance of death cult assassins, does their wargear list them as having 2 power weapons? ( don't have that dex)

If so could a player using them model 1 sword and 1 axe and then choose which to use before they strike?

Yes the codex has them listed with 2 power weapons. Thats an interesting question.

I wonder how you'd all react if I stack 6 Turrets on top of each other on my battlewagon. Or mounti a vindicator cannon on a turret. Or model my orks to hold huge metal sheets to block LoS.

That's about as much creative modeling as providing models with no options for axes whatsoever with such weapons.

Jidmah wrote:That's about as much creative modeling as providing models with no options for axes whatsoever with such weapons.

"Power weapon" without a sub-type does allow for a sub-type to be used. Look at the model, not the model's box, to identify which is used. At least if you use the rules.

Jidmah wrote:I wonder how you'd all react if I stack 6 Turrets on top of each other on my battlewagon. Or mounti a vindicator cannon on a turret. Or model my orks to hold huge metal sheets to block LoS.

That's about as much creative modeling as providing models with no options for axes whatsoever with such weapons.

The difference is that none of those things you are listing are legal options for the models. The DCA model has the Wargear option '2 Power Weapons'. The rulebook says to figure out which weapon they have, look at the model. It's that simple.

If the rulebook said 'to figure how if a vindicator cannon has a turret or not, look at the model', you could totally pull it off.

Akin to saying that rotating a turret is MFA, despite there being rules to do it.

Y U NO GLU UR TURRET?! = Y U GLU AX?!

/boggle

Jidmah wrote:I wonder how you'd all react if I stack 6 Turrets on top of each other on my battlewagon. Or mounti a vindicator cannon on a turret. Or model my orks to hold huge metal sheets to block LoS.

That's about as much creative modeling as providing models with no options for axes whatsoever with such weapons.

Except... all units with power weapons have the option, unless otherwise stated.

The three choices (sword/ax/maul) might not be perfectly balanced against each other, but all have pluses and minuses. I'm not sure how often a T3, 5++ save model will choose to be I1, but if tehy want to, go for it!

pretre wrote:

Jidmah wrote:I wonder how you'd all react if I stack 6 Turrets on top of each other on my battlewagon. Or mounti a vindicator cannon on a turret. Or model my orks to hold huge metal sheets to block LoS.

That's about as much creative modeling as providing models with no options for axes whatsoever with such weapons.

The difference is that none of those things you are listing are legal options for the models. The DCA model has the Wargear option '2 Power Weapons'. The rulebook says to figure out which weapon they have, look at the model. It's that simple.

If the rulebook said 'to figure how if a vindicator cannon has a turret or not, look at the model', you could totally pull it off.

Oh, the battlewagon lists a killkannon, a kannon, and up to four big shootaz. Those can all be found on turrets. There is no rule against me gluing them all on top of each other.

There is also no rule preventing you from gluing both landraider sponsons on the same side of the landraider.

And there is no rule preventing you from adding additional bits to your models to have them block more LoS.

Using any weapons but those provided for your models just for the game-changing effect (which you all are) is clearly modeling for advantage.

By looking at a death cult-assassins I can clearly see them having swords. You know. The ones in Codex: Grey Knights.

Jidmah wrote:There is no rule against me gluing them all on top of each other.

Other than the rules you mean?

"May take a single big gun" from page 102 (codex:Orks) disagrees with your premise.

Editing to add:
In fact, it proves you are wrong.

RaptorsTallon wrote:I have been giving this some thought and I have come to the conclusion that, if you have the option to buy a power weapon, you are free to choose what sort of power weapon you want.

Voldrak wrote:Seraphims have the option to buy Melta Pistols, yet GW only makes them with bolt pistols or hand flamers.

If anyone tried to tell me I cannot model my characters to represent the equipment I wish them to have, as long as it's permitted by the rules, I would not play them.

Because GW only makes some models with 1 type of power weapon does not prevent you from addressing the issue yourself as long as their still using a power weapon and not suddenly a thunder hammer or chain fist.

Case closed.

You're allowed to model your generic power weapon however you want and use the rules for whatever subtype you have modelled it as.

Jidmah wrote:I wonder how you'd all react if I stack 6 Turrets on top of each other on my battlewagon. Or mounti a vindicator cannon on a turret. Or model my orks to hold huge metal sheets to block LoS.

That's about as much creative modeling as providing models with no options for axes whatsoever with such weapons.

Creative modelling allows the players to break the rules of the game in many more ways than what you just described. That's why modelling for advantage is never allowed. Basically, the guideline is GW's official models if they exist. If they don't exist you're free to use more imagination. Conversions are always encouraged but not when they clearly give an advantage to the player. In the case of a conversion that is giving an advantage, the player usually refuses that advantage and 'counts' the model as the official model, whether that is variations in weaponry or a difference in shape or size. For example, if you convert a Hero to hold an ornate looking two-handed halberd, before you deploy you can remind your opponent that your Hero has in fact bought a Thunder Hammer but you converted it to look more interesting. Likewise, if you have a crouching Wraithlord under some camo nettings, you'll still allow your opponent to shoot the model 'as if' if it was a standard Wraithlord model that stands up.

Facts in this case are the following: GW makes models for Death Cult Assassins, and they're holding swords. The Codex doesn't give them any options and just says they're armed with two power weapons. The rulebook clearly says the following: "If a model's wargear says it has a power weapon which has no further special rules, look at the model to tell which type of power weapon it has: if it's a sword or a dagger, it's a power sword; if it's an axe or halberd, it's a power axe."



By looking at the models we see that they're armed with swords or daggers, meaning they're armed with power swords. Making your custom models different to the official models not only visually but gameplay wise is the very essence of modelling for advantage. Modelling for advantage is cheating.

The argument in the case of DCA having power axes or any mixture of weapons other than two power swords is unsupportable.

Yours truly, a guy who has played with Grey Knights for over a year.

Jidmah wrote:

pretre wrote:

Jidmah wrote:I wonder how you'd all react if I stack 6 Turrets on top of each other on my battlewagon. Or mounti a vindicator cannon on a turret. Or model my orks to hold huge metal sheets to block LoS.

That's about as much creative modeling as providing models with no options for axes whatsoever with such weapons.

The difference is that none of those things you are listing are legal options for the models. The DCA model has the Wargear option '2 Power Weapons'. The rulebook says to figure out which weapon they have, look at the model. It's that simple.

If the rulebook said 'to figure how if a vindicator cannon has a turret or not, look at the model', you could totally pull it off.

Oh, the battlewagon lists a killkannon, a kannon, and up to four big shootaz. Those can all be found on turrets. There is no rule against me gluing them all on top of each other.

Using any weapons but those provided for your models just for the game-changing effect (which you all are) is clearly modeling for advantage.

Well, I suppose, but no differently than taking a combi-weapon from one kit and using it in another. Techinically, yes, my tactical sargeant is "modelled for advantage" now.

Modelling for advantage is usually meant when the dimensions or structure of a model are altered to take advantage of the fact that 40k is a model based game with LOS. Altering a models weapons to allow it to use different rules is converting, which is part of the hobby, and has been.

Jidmah wrote:

pretre wrote:

Jidmah wrote:I wonder how you'd all react if I stack 6 Turrets on top of each other on my battlewagon. Or mounti a vindicator cannon on a turret. Or model my orks to hold huge metal sheets to block LoS.

That's about as much creative modeling as providing models with no options for axes whatsoever with such weapons.

The difference is that none of those things you are listing are legal options for the models. The DCA model has the Wargear option '2 Power Weapons'. The rulebook says to figure out which weapon they have, look at the model. It's that simple.

If the rulebook said 'to figure how if a vindicator cannon has a turret or not, look at the model', you could totally pull it off.

Oh, the battlewagon lists a killkannon, a kannon, and up to four big shootaz. Those can all be found on turrets. There is no rule against me gluing them all on top of each other.

There is also no rule preventing you from gluing both landraider sponsons on the same side of the landraider.

And there is no rule preventing you from adding additional bits to your models to have them block more LoS.

Using any weapons but those provided for your models just for the game-changing effect (which you all are) is clearly modeling for advantage.

By looking at a death cult-assassins I can clearly see then having swords. You know. The one in Codex: Grey Knights.

Very well put. I can see no issue with swapping the DCA swords (both) to axes. I do find issue if they swap 1 sword for 1 axe so they have both weapons. MFA for sure.