Jidmah wrote: Because some of those models don't come with swords.

Boneswords
Targetting array
Iridium armor
Stimulant injector
Vectored retro thrusters

Therion wrote:

This is the problem: you are making a moral judgment of an action that, at the time, had no moral dimension.

You're no doubt speaking the truth about your commissar model. You modeled it and gained an advantage but it's a result you couldn't predict at the time of modeling. You can't say the same of anyone who equips his DCA's with the combination of both the axe and the sword because not only is it an uncommon combination but specifically has only newfound advantages with zero disadvantages. So I guess your reply to Jidmah was purely theoretical and not about this thread in particular.

But.... do I get the benefit of the rule? Am I to be morally judged for MFA?

Could I use that model freely, while a person that converts later could not? If not, why not?

And should the fact that I suddenly rememebered that Iron Hands sargeants had power axes really be a determining factor for the moral value of a decision to convert tactical sarges with power axes?

And it does relate to this thread. Because a person that models the DCA is doing exactly what a person modelling a Company Commander would do. Which is exactly what I did.

Yet I'm apparently ok, because my heart was pure, while a person that converts the DCA is now only seeking advantage.

the problem is that tying a persons intentions to the act is tricky, because intent is so hard to judge.

pretre wrote:Did someone just try to get all legal on Polonius?

He seems to have silenced your crowd of deniers by admitting that this is a question of MFA and is merely debating the justifiable extent of it.

Polonius wrote:the problem is that tying a persons intentions to the act is tricky, because intent is so hard to judge.

It's not really as hard as you're making it out to be. I'm sure I don't need to give you advice for evaluating a suspected MFA incident, but first I'd look at the extent of it. Is it blatant like a grot sized Land Raider or a crouching Wraithlord, or is it more subtle? Does the person have a reasonable explanation for what his unconventional models look like? In the end, as with any house rules, the tournament organiser will decide whether the issue is a question of MFA or not. I can't see DCA's with mixed power axes and swords being anything else. It's a well known issue to anyone who has even a cursory understanding on 6th edition, and cannot ever be considered an accident or an unforeseen advantage.

Therion wrote:You modeled it and gained an advantage but it's a result you couldn't predict at the time of modeling. In law we'd call your act illegal but not punishable. You can't say the same of anyone who equips his DCA's with the combination of both the axe and the sword because not only is it an uncommon combination but specifically has only newfound advantages with zero disadvantages.

Neither act is illegal. Jesus Xavier Harrington Christ the Fourth. Not real world illegal, not 40k illegal. Adventageous is NOT equivalent with illegal. It is absurd for you to even suggest such a thing.

I admit that, under your ridiculously broad definition, I'm MFA.

IdentifyZero wrote:
If you model your DCA with an axe AND a sword. You are modelling for advantage. Just bloody admit it.

Assume we admit it.

So what?

Yes, people will make decisions based on what they think is effective. And yes, people will exploit quicks in rules changes (hello deathrolla!).

Welcome to the human race. We've had jackets made!

Destrado wrote:
I play Orks How do you model 'Eavy Armour on your Nobz, by the way?

By using the 'eavy armor bits from the boyz sprue or nobz sprue (steel jaw, extra-spiky shoulders). If you fancy, you could even get the metal 'eavy armor bits.

I can't guess which ones, no, I haven't seem them personally. Is it something that's done one time, i.e. proxying? Is it necessity? Are all those TFG? Is one of them even TFG? You don't know; I don't know. Have you played any of them? Were they good sports? Did you point this out to them? (well, except the Vendetta guy I'd guess)

Some of them were, some of them weren't. Funny that you mention the vendetta guy. He actually lifted his vendetta up whenever it needed to shoot or be shot. His flying stand had been stole by someone, and didn't know where to get a new one. The worst TFG was actually the tau player.

Hell I've seen white dwarfs where there were pictures battle reports with people using a can of Pringles as a Carnifex as it was amusingly pointed out by the staff. I just think that limiting the game to the official models is far worse than not allowing any kind of conversion because there's a risk the player is MFA.

As pointed out multiple times, I don't care what your models look like, as long as you make your best effort to use them like the official one.
There is a player here playing "The greater good guard", which is basically a random collection of half-painted models arranged to fit the guard codex. I play him quite often, even though he uses Karandras as Creed.

Which I don't really think is the case with DCA, it's simply a different tactical option and one that is allowed by the rulebook and GW with the Power Weapons being assumed by what you see on the model your opponent owns. You totally have the right to decline playing against people whom you think that have broken the rules. But then again, your definition of what constitutes a rules abuse could differ from mine; would you be upset if I used wyches with power swords and told you before the game they were power axes? I think this is relevant because it mostly shows the disposition of the person I'm playing against.

Are there axes and swords in their box? I honestly don't know. If yes, sure whatever. Otherwise, I'd inform you that they can't have axes normally.

pretre wrote:I admit that, under [Therion's] ridiculously broad definition, I'm MFA.

You ALREADY admitted that. And so did I. And Therion, who read the thread, already knows this. So Therion is not replying in good faith (or is suffering from a serious medical problem which causes massive memory lapses) when he suggests that no one has discussed the definition of MFA here.

Savageconvoy wrote:

Jidmah wrote: Because some of those models don't come with swords.

Boneswords
Targetting array
Iridium armor
Stimulant injector
Vectored retro thrusters

Your codex gives you permission to use all those.

What gives you permission to use power axes? The rulebook doesn't.

Yeah, I was trying to be unambiguous though. Under their definition, everything is MFA.

I find it hard to believe that so many people would be cool with Howling Banshees taking duel Power Mauls.
And it makes proxying awkward to say the least. Cram as many power weapons as you can into your army and decide on a battle-by-battle basis what they are.

rigeld2 wrote:

Jidmah wrote:So, unless you are looking at a model modified from the norm, you'd find swords on DCA and crusaders. Thus, unless you modify your model for an advantage, you wouldn't be able to find a power axe, spear or lance.

Establish the norm. The rule book doesn't - what is allowing you to? Again, you're drawing a completely arbitrary line with zero rules support.

@Joe: "Someone" is irrelevant as long as they do not equal Citadel. You are not allowed to play with PP or lego models either. Unless you are doing so on purpose, I'd like to point out that you are getting rude.

So my buddy that scratch built 30 crusaders and DCA (the shields and one weapon are magnetized) last year with a mix of spears, axes, swords, and daggers has to throw out anything that isn't a sword or shield?

Oh, wait - they're scratch built, so already not legal.

I know at least two stores which will ask you to remove those models if you play with them (no GW bits).

Besides, just count them as swords? Sheesh.

The rules do not mention nor care where the weapon came from, only that it is attached.

People can make up whatever else they like, though they may have issues playing in public.
Especially when assuming someone else's intent.

Therion wrote:

pretre wrote:Did someone just try to get all legal on Polonius?

He seems to have silenced your crowd of deniers by admitting that this is a question of MFA and is merely debating the justifiable extent of it.

It's not a question of illegal but no punishable. That's not this at all.

Something cannot be illegal unless there is a rule prohibiting it. There is none here. You can convert a model. You can take an option modelled. All legal.

What you're arguing is that while something is legal, it is morally wrong.

You might be able to argue that it violates the "spirit, but not letter, of the law", but that's not a road you want to go down.

It's a rules exploit. You can freely call it that if you'd like.

Jidmah wrote:What gives you permission to use power axes? The rulebook doesn't.

It does, you just don't understand that it does. WYSIWYG as outlined in the book, and referenced again in the section on Power Weapons, has nothing to do with what a Citadel Model is holding. We're telling you legal wargear options are legal, and should be visibile on the model. You know, real simple, non-rocket science type stuff.


How many models of Rune Priests are there? Not enough to cover all the possible wargear combinations I'll tell you that much.

Jidmah wrote:

Savageconvoy wrote:

Jidmah wrote: Because some of those models don't come with swords.

Boneswords
Targetting array
Iridium armor
Stimulant injector
Vectored retro thrusters

Your codex gives you permission to use all those.

What gives you permission to use power axes? The rulebook doesn't.

You still haven't shown what gives you the right to establish the norm against which a,, conversions are judged and deemed legal or not.
The rule book does not set this standard, as much as you keep preaching it does.

The codex, due to the FAQ, reads "power weapon". Define that for me. I'm not going to tell you what unit I'm referring to because there's no rule basis for it to matter.

Therion wrote:

pretre wrote:Did someone just try to get all legal on Polonius?

He seems to have silenced your crowd of deniers by admitting that this is a question of MFA and is merely debating the justifiable extent of it.

No, he simply is the only one who still bothers answering to you and your constant [insert socially acceptable term for trolling]. Do I have to bring up all the nonsense you've spouted in your haste to prove a point? So because we were the majority we're wrong?

Don't get all prickly because one in ten posts is directed to you.

Joe Mama wrote:

Jidmah wrote:What gives you permission to use power axes? The rulebook doesn't.

It does, you just don't understand that it does. WYSIWYG as outlined in the book, and referenced again in the section on Power Weapons, has nothing to do with what a Citdel Model is holding. But we're telling you legal wargear options are legal, and should be visibile on the model.


How many models of Rune Priests are there? Not enough to cover all the possible wargear combinations I'll tell you that much.

to be fair, you aren't really getting his point.

He's fine with anything the codex explicitly allows. There is no model for, say, a devestator sargeant with power fist. You can easily convert one. It's black and white allowed by codex.

The rule is not "any model armed with a power weapon may select an ax, maul, spear, or sword. This choice must be appropriately modelled." The rule is, whatever the model has, the model has. The only reason you can have a DCA with axes is because you modelled it. The very act of creating the model creates the option. Creating a devestator sgt with powerfist merely realizes the option.

Jidmah wrote:
As pointed out multiple times, I don't care what your models look like, as long as you make your best effort to use them like the official one.

That's called converting, and the rulebook specifically states that if a power weapon looks like X, then it receives X rules. The rulebook cares what your weapon looks like.

Something cannot be illegal unless there is a rule prohibiting it. There is none here. You can convert a model. You can take an option modelled. All legal.

There are house rules prohibiting conversions that give you an advantage.

It's a rules exploit. You can freely call it that if you'd like.

You're only repeating your previous posts. You and I have both agreed it's MFA and that MFA is a house rule -- A rule that makes the act in question and more blatant acts like grot sized Land Raider conversions illegal. We either follow that rule or we don't, but I find it mysterious you'd all of a sudden say there are no rules prohibiting exploits such as these when we've been discussing these house rules all the time.

What stores don't allow conversions? Or are you saying he has no GW. I don't think that's what he meant by scratch built either.

And what store enforces GW only nowadays?

rigeld2 wrote:

Jidmah wrote:So, unless you are looking at a model modified from the norm, you'd find swords on DCA and crusaders. Thus, unless you modify your model for an advantage, you wouldn't be able to find a power axe, spear or lance.

Establish the norm. The rule book doesn't - what is allowing you to? Again, you're drawing a completely arbitrary line with zero rules support.

Just because you ignored it.

Besides, just count them as swords? Sheesh.

But then I'm not WYSIWYG. and there are some GW bits, but he sculpted the minis.

Shandara wrote:On a related tangent. What happens if a Howling Banshee gets an axe (or 2) and charges. I1 or I10?

The rule for modifiers says that modifiers that 'set' a stat value are applied last, but doesn't say how to apply them or in what order.

I believe you could use the precedent set in the necron faq
"Q; If a model with whip coils is in base contact with a model with an Initiative-boosting rule/piece of wargear (e.g. an Eldar banshee Mask ect.), which order are the initiatives modified? (p44)
A; as a 'set value modifier' the Whip Coils effect is applied after all other modifiers. If the model is effected by another set value modifier, roll off to see which is applied first at the start of each Fight sub-phase.

This would in effect give each banshee a 50% chance each turn of hitting at I1 or I10 with a power axe.

Wow, 11 pages of MFA talk and maybe 4-5 posts about what actually matters with the topic. The actual gameplay issue is that by allowing the DCA access to power axes and not giving power axes the specialist rule, they have allowed for DCA to become silly in CC, getting bonus attacks with both the sword and the axe. What this ruling will come down to really is how the TO rule, and rule before tournaments. If you playing with friends and they pull this on you, might want to think about your friendship situation with said person

First: accusations that someone is "trolling" are inappropriate for Dakka, and may result in warnings and/or sanctions. If you think a post is a violation of Dakka's posting rules, hit the "Alert Moderator" button. If you find you don't enjoy a particular poster's posting style, make use of the "Ignore" feature.

Second, chill out people. If you can't discuss the new rules, which are less than 5 days old, without resorting to personal attacks then you are taking this game WAY too seriously.

Therion wrote:

Something cannot be illegal unless there is a rule prohibiting it. There is none here. You can convert a model. You can take an option modelled. All legal.

There are house rules prohibiting conversions that give you an advantage.

It's a rules exploit. You can freely call it that if you'd like.

You're only repeating your previous posts. You and I have both agreed it's MFA and that MFA is a house rule. A rule that makes the act in question and more blatant acts like grot sized Land Raider conversions illegal.

I don't consider something illegal by house rule illegal.

It's semantics, but that would be "disallowed."

I mean, none of this is governmental, so nothing is or isn't "legal."

Legal is sloppy short hand for RAW, I guess.

Also, the very fact that MFA is a house rule means that local variations exist. You clearly see no room for it. Virtually all touranments and stores, at least near me, allow quite a bit of latitude. A situation like this wouldn't even been seen as MFA, because most people are going to intepret the power weapon rule as allowing free reign to, well, model to advantage.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

moosifer wrote:Wow, 11 pages of MFA talk and maybe 4-5 posts about what actually matters with the topic. The actual gameplay issue is that by allowing the DCA access to power axes and not giving power axes the specialist rule, they have allowed for DCA to become silly in CC, getting bonus attacks with both the sword and the axe. What this ruling will come down to really is how the TO rule, and rule before tournaments. If you playing with friends and they pull this on you, might want to think about your friendship situation with said person

I'm not sure allowing the DCAs to swing with power axes is as monstrously overpowered as you seem to think. Certianly not enough to influence most friendships.

moosifer wrote:Wow, 11 pages of MFA talk and maybe 4-5 posts about what actually matters with the topic. The actual gameplay issue is that by allowing the DCA access to power axes and not giving power axes the specialist rule, they have allowed for DCA to become silly in CC, getting bonus attacks with both the sword and the axe. What this ruling will come down to really is how the TO rule, and rule before tournaments. If you playing with friends and they pull this on you, might want to think about your friendship situation with said person

Once again, since you missed it, DCA, even with Axes, are WORSE than they are in 5th edition. Yup, that's right, they are still worse than before. But even if this made them better than in 5th, it'd still be legal. Pointing out how good or bad the combo is *not* an argument for the legality of the combo. Furthermore, this issue applies to Every. Single. Entry. which lists 'power weapon' as an option. This isn't about DCA.

Polonius wrote:I don't consider something illegal by house rule illegal.

It's semantics, but that would be "disallowed."

So you have a problem with me calling your commissar example illegal but not punishable, and then say that grot Land Raiders are not illegal but disallowed? Disallowed on the merits of your house rule. You're right that it's nothing but semantics, so I can't see what real world difference it has if we just call DCA with power axes and swords disallowed instead of illegal.

Joe Mama wrote:Under the Therion / Jidmah theory of MFA, taking two free flamers with my GH squad is MFA. Literally everything is MFA. They have drawn a line in the sand, but it is an absurd line, which not only includes the sand on the beach, but every piece of land on all of Earth.

It really isn't, and you'r enot helping anything by not trying to understand their point better.

Two free flamers are explicitly allowed by codex.

DCAs are not explicitly allowed axes. They are only allowed "waht the model has." They are therefore only allowed axes due to modelling.

Thus, modelling grants an advantage that did not exist prior to the modelling.

Polonius wrote:DCAs are not explicitly allowed axes. They are only allowed "waht the model has." They are therefore only allowed axes due to modelling.

Thus, modelling grants an advantage that did not exist prior to the modelling.

DCAs are explictly allowed axes though. They have two weapons, of the category 'Power Weapons' - Axes are in that category. The way you know which weapon they have, while playing the game, is to LOOK AT THEM. Just like you look at the flamer to know a marine has a flamer.


Or are you claiming the chart listing the type of Power Weapons does not explicitly tell us what the rulebook means by 'power weapons'?
Follow up question - If you say yes to the first question, what exactly are DCA explictly allowed melee wise? Nothing?

Therion wrote:

Polonius wrote:I don't consider something illegal by house rule illegal.

It's semantics, but that would be "disallowed."

So you have a problem with me calling your commissar example illegal but not punishable, and then say that grot Land Raiders are not illegal but disallowed? Disallowed on the merits of your house rule. You're right that it's nothing but semantics, so I can't see what real world difference it has if we just call DCA with power axes and swords disallowed instead of illegal.

I would say that the RAW allows either my commisar with ax, or a grot tank landraider.

The former will be disallowed in few locations, as few people see using an old conversion as WYSIWYG as bad, even if they reject the idea that pwoer weapons now have unlimited choice. A grot tank is a clear abuse from the get go, and will be protested pretty universally.

In the real world, few places will disallow the DCA. RAW allows it, and it's not abusive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joe Mama wrote:

Polonius wrote:DCAs are not explicitly allowed axes. They are only allowed "waht the model has." They are therefore only allowed axes due to modelling.

Thus, modelling grants an advantage that did not exist prior to the modelling.

DCAs are explictly allowed axes though. They have two weapons, of the category 'Power Weapons' - Axes are in that category. The way you know which weapon they have, while playing the game, is to LOOK AT THEM. Just like you look at the flamer to know a marine has a flamer.


Or are you claiming the chart listing the type of Power Weapons does not explicitly tell us what the rulebook means by 'power weapons'?

It says to look at the model. It does not say you can model tehm with axes.

Prior to any conversion to an ax, there does not exist the option to give them an ax. You have to create a model with an ax for the option to gain an ax to appear.

It's convoluted, which is why I reject the idea. It bascially states that the option to build a DCA with axes doesn't exist until it's actually built.

In the real world, few places will disallow the DCA. RAW allows it, and it's not abusive.

You're speculating. We have to wait for quite a while before 6th edition has really sunken into the scene as a whole and we can start making universal declarations like that.

Polonius wrote:It does not say you can model tehm with axes.

Under 6th edition, what are DCA explicitly allowed, melee wise? Nothing?

The Power Weapon is determined by the MODEL.

You don't get to choose, RAW.

I have more arguments, but others have made them more clearly, really its just that, although you can model axes on your DCA, there is no rule allowing a PLAYER to decide what weapon his model has, so modelling a model with different weapons is Technically MFA. (imo)

edit: Personally I would let it happen, I just agree that its not totally legal (In a technicality way)

Kiredor wrote:The Power Weapon is determined by the MODEL.

Which model? I have a potential model, which is in a unit, which can get a "power weapon." There's no model for this guy. So... I can't field him? He's invisible?

Jidmah wrote:They gain permission to use all those parts by the codex. No such thing is happening for power weapons. Are not told to pick one of them. Thus you can not. You use any power weapon that is provided for your model. Then, when you need its rules (which is long after building the list) you now can tell by looking at your model.

Which brings us back to Space Marine Captains being legally allowed to use power axes... but only if they are Finecast, not plastic.



For what it's worth, I can understand the interpretation that the weapon you use should depend on the model... I just don't think that applying that interpretation that strictly actually makes any sense. The rule telling us to go by the model isn't (IMO) intended to stop you from modelling whichever weapon you want.. .it's intended to make identification simple on the tabletop - If it looks like an axe, it's an axe.

Claiming that a player is cheating because he swapped a sword for an axe, when both come from the same weapon option, just leads to silliness like the aforementioned Captain. Whatever inadvertant rules travesties GW have come out with over the years, I refuse to accept that they intended for a model's legal load-out to be dependant on the material the model you buy is made from.

Technically, only if your opponent agrees.

I would, but i can understand why people wouldn't.

Just like how I allow proxies.

Or even circles of cardboard.

edit (Aimed at Joe Mama)

I fully accept that the intent of the rule is to allow conversions with different weapons.

I just also understand that people could view it as MFA, unless directly specified.

The ability to 'give' your models any type of Power Weapon, in my opinion, is fine; the fact that the said model has a particular special rule/wargear attribute that provides and/or alters the negative of the Power Weapon is indeed unfair.

As is mentioned, it essentially boils down to that, and as the BRB didn't specify anything, people are going to take advantage of that vague wording and take advantage of any special rules, etc.

That is where the MFA comes into play; otherwise, I believe it to be fair.

Kiredor wrote:edit (Aimed at Joe Mama)

I fully accept that the intent of the rule is to allow conversions with different weapons.

I just also understand that people could view it as MFA, unless directly specified.

So, what do I do with a guy I have to build, which there is no model for, which can take a power weapon? Cry in a corner in despair, because I am not permitted to give him ANY type of power weapon, since no model of the guy exists? Assume he can be made from a kit, which has multiple types of power weapon options. Then answer again assuming he cannot be made from a kit.

After you answer that, tell me what happens if a model exists, but it has been out of circulation for 20 years (so it is no longer made), and it is also the wrong size compared to current infantry models of the exact same type (ie marine or guard). Do I have to use that model's power weapon type and do I have to make a model the same exact size?

What if it is for sale, but only in Japan, and in fact was never for sale in my country?

What if GW had a special super rare version of Model X, with a different type of power weapon, where only 5 were made, and never sold to anyone, but given out as prizes. Can I use that wargear option?

What if the super special rare versions were made, shown to everyone and well known, but then in a freak accident were destroyed by a meteor. That's right, a meteor, not a meteorite. They were never made again. They literally do not exist anymore, except perhaps, in our hearts. Can I use their wargear?

Converting is apparently ok, so long as you do not actually convert anything, but instead create a new model.

Or something like that; it almost makes sense though if you read it fast enough.

editing to add my reference:

Jidmah wrote:Only by converting or scratch building you are ever allowed to use axes on a DCA.

Note that I have never met anyone or read anyone positing that swapping weapons is anything other than converting, but hey - its not my point to make.

So, what do I do with a guy I have to build, which there is no model for, which can take a power weapon? Cry in a corner in despair, because I am not permitted to give him ANY type of power weapon, since no model of the guy exists?

Or accept that maybe, somewhere, is the kind of person who WILL argue with you about it?

What happens about bases in that situation? What height is the guy meant to be? There are always issues around 'models' (game term) that dont have proper 'models' (physical things).

Its all down to the people playing each individual game.

edit Response is to your original, preedited message.

To your current one,


Its all down to the people playing each individual game.


Thats it, really.

OK try this on for size.....

A Dark Eldar Archon (and many others) comes with the option of replacing their pistol and CCW with a large variety of options. However the blister pack only comes with a husk blade and a soul trap, which funnily enough is not even his default wargear, but rather an expensive combo. In order to represent his options you must kitbash (usually with Wyches/Kabalites) and this is shown in the codex itself.

However a problem emerges where there is a sever lack of right hand CCWs....

Say you want your Archon to have an Agonizer and a Venom blade, in order to put one of those in his right hand you must take the weapons from the Scourge kit and cut off one from the hand, then find a right arm and do the same thing (lets say a splinter pistol) and then glue the weapon on.

Is this MFA? Even though it is 100% legal and endorsed by the codex? (This is also the only way to model duel-wielders like Duke Sliscus and Drazhar).

Now that there are different power weapons I could take an Archon with a power sword and a power spear (which used to be the 'same weapon'), or maybe take the polearm from the raider kit add a stray blade and make it a power halberd (axe).

You see chopping and gluing bits was mandatory in 5th as well. What makes power weapon types different? As long as the wargear option is there it can be done. In fact there are plenty of CCWs that don't even exist in model form (Djin Blade/DemiKlaive) you have to make your own.

Kiredor wrote:

So, what do I do with a guy I have to build, which there is no model for, which can take a power weapon? Cry in a corner in despair, because I am not permitted to give him ANY type of power weapon, since no model of the guy exists?

Or accept that maybe, somewhere, is the kind of person who WILL argue with you about it?

What happens about bases in that situation? What height is the guy meant to be? There are always issues around 'models' (game term) that dont have proper 'models' (physical things).

Its all down to the people playing each individual game.

Oh I should clarify. There are parts to make the guy, parts at exactly the right size. There just exists no MODEL of the dude with a power weapon ANYWHERE. GW has NEVER sold one. GW has sold one with a chainsword, but not one with a "power weapon" whatever that is . How the heck can I figure out which kind of power weapon to give the guy (the kit has all these options which scares me)? Please help me because I am crying already and I didn't even get to the corner yet.

Jidmah wrote:
By using the 'eavy armor bits from the boyz sprue or nobz sprue (steel jaw, extra-spiky shoulders). If you fancy, you could even get the metal 'eavy armor bits. 

Yeah, but there isn't exactly anything to go by when we say 'Eavy Armour. Less so in the case of Boyz, but what you count as 'Eavy Armour I could very well assume were the Nobz with the Jaw and some larger shoulder pads, since the official, old metal Nobz with 'Eavy Armour resemble the AOBR nobz, and the latter are stated in the AOBR rulebook to have a 6+ save.

Some of them were, some of them weren't. Funny that you mention the vendetta guy. He actually lifted his vendetta up whenever it needed to shoot or be shot. His flying stand had been stole by someone, and didn't know where to get a new one. The worst TFG was actually the tau player.

Well that makes sense. Who would steal a flying stand, anyway? Geeze.

As pointed out multiple times, I don't care what your models look like, as long as you make your best effort to use them like the official one.
There is a player here playing "The greater good guard", which is basically a random collection of half-painted models arranged to fit the guard codex. I play him quite often, even though he uses Karandras as Creed.

That is because CREED! is all there is!

Are there axes and swords in their box? I honestly don't know. If yes, sure whatever. Otherwise, I'd inform you that they can't have axes normally.

They don't come with axes, there isn't a single axe in the box or any Dark Eldar box for that matter :( Well, I'd have to tell you that there weren't axes that looked eldar-ish enough to me, so my Dark Eldar from the Twisted Rune use a heavier sword that is a lot more unwieldy and gives them +1 Str and AP2, at the cost of striking at I1, since the "swords" they use are better represented by the Power Axe rules.

For me the DCA is no different than someone buying a box of Grey Knights and equipping them with whatever is considered the best loadout (Four Halberds and a Hammer?). You're taking a unit and equipping it to suit a battlefield role. The difference being, Terminator Grey Knights have the options, at no cost, to exchange their Nemesis Sword for a Halberd or even the Daemon Hammer (which is basically a Power Fist!) - different wargear at the same points cost, and with much broader differences in gameplay that the miserly DCA having both a PSword and a PAxe.

Joe Mama wrote:

Kiredor wrote:

So, what do I do with a guy I have to build, which there is no model for, which can take a power weapon? Cry in a corner in despair, because I am not permitted to give him ANY type of power weapon, since no model of the guy exists?

Or accept that maybe, somewhere, is the kind of person who WILL argue with you about it?

What happens about bases in that situation? What height is the guy meant to be? There are always issues around 'models' (game term) that dont have proper 'models' (physical things).

Its all down to the people playing each individual game.

Oh I should clarify. There are parts to make the guy, parts at exactly the right size. There just exists no MODEL of the dude with a power weapon ANYWHERE. GW has NEVER sold one. GW has sold one with a chainsword, but not one with a "power weapon" whatever that is . How the heck can I figure out which kind of power weapon to give the guy (the kit has all these options which scares me)? Please help me because I am crying already and I didn't even get to the corner yet.

Er. I guess I'll go find my Cure CDs for ya?

I really don't know, just that someone, out there, MIGHT have an issue with it, and leave it at that?

I just can understand where, for the sake of something like DCA, people could have an issue with it.

I can't really add any more,

sorry.

If you are so concerned about what someone, somewhere, might think about something creative you may do, that you change your mind. . .just wow.

Someone needs to make a flow-chart or something so we can follow to figure out what we can do. There are SO many questions, I am literally balling in the corner.

What to do when taking the 'Power Weapon' option.

- Does a model with a power weapon exist? Yes / No
- If No, cannot create your own, model cannot be fielded.
- If Yes, how many types?
1? You are done. You can only field that specific power weapon.
2+? Ok, randomly select between the 2+ options, because by RAW you a human being cannot decide which type of power weapon to take.

Joe Mama wrote:Someone needs to make a flow-chart or something so we can follow to figure out what we can do. There are SO many questions, I am literally balling in the corner.

What to do when taking the 'Power Weapon' option.

1. Do your house rules permit it?
If no, ask the house.
If no house rules or YES, play 40k.

Kiredor wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:

Kiredor wrote:

So, what do I do with a guy I have to build, which there is no model for, which can take a power weapon? Cry in a corner in despair, because I am not permitted to give him ANY type of power weapon, since no model of the guy exists?

Or accept that maybe, somewhere, is the kind of person who WILL argue with you about it?

What happens about bases in that situation? What height is the guy meant to be? There are always issues around 'models' (game term) that dont have proper 'models' (physical things).

Its all down to the people playing each individual game.

Oh I should clarify. There are parts to make the guy, parts at exactly the right size. There just exists no MODEL of the dude with a power weapon ANYWHERE. GW has NEVER sold one. GW has sold one with a chainsword, but not one with a "power weapon" whatever that is . How the heck can I figure out which kind of power weapon to give the guy (the kit has all these options which scares me)? Please help me because I am crying already and I didn't even get to the corner yet.

Er. I guess I'll go find my Cure CDs for ya?

I really don't know, just that someone, out there, MIGHT have an issue with it, and leave it at that?

I just can understand where, for the sake of something like DCA, people could have an issue with it.

I can't really add any more,

sorry.

You said this before "You don't get to choose, RAW." But now after I posed a basic question to you, you gave up. You didn't even *attempt* to answer. Oh well, thanks anyway.

Therion wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Page reference?

The page reference you're looking for is from any book that teaches you English. You need to first figure out what 'modelling' means; what 'for' means; and what 'advantage' means. They you can take part in the discussion. It just so happens that I'm a generous guy so I'll help you out:

1) I look at the Death Cult Assassin model and notice it's holding power swords. I don't like power swords. What I do like however is a combination of power swords and axes.
2) I then take a miniature, and MODEL it to have an axe and a sword.
3) I agree that it gives me an ADVANTAGE during games because I can now attack with either weapon depending on situation. It's something I could not do unless I modeled.

-Because I'm not clinically insane and don't want to embarass myself, if asked, I'll tell anyone that the motivation behind the very specific combination of axe and the sword wasn't aesthetic, it was gameplay reasons. That explains the word FOR in the sentence that you're wondering about. It's causation. It links the act and the end result together.

-Summa summarum: I modeled for advantage. Everything I've said and done proves it beyond reasonable doubt.

Now the only room for debate is whether I think modelling for advantage is acceptable or not. Jidmah's reasoning is sound. If you think modeling for advantage is acceptable, the sky and our twisted imagination is the only limit. A word of warning though: I've been playing for 20 years and been going to tournaments for 15 of those years and never has modelling for advantage been allowed. It leads to the disqualification of your units or a points reduction or both.

WOW, i almost died laughing reading this quote, here let me try! CHANGES IN BOLD!

1) I look at the SPACE MARINE CAPTAIN model and notice it's holding a COMBI-PLASMA. I don't like COMBI-PLASMAS. What I do like however is a COMBI-FLAMER.
2) I then take a miniature, and MODEL it to have a COMBI-FLAMER.
3) I agree that it gives me an ADVANTAGE during games because I can now BLAST HORDE ARMIES WITH A TEMPLATE WEAPON. It's something I could not do unless I modeled.

OF course, when asked why I did this, i will say because i think flamers are better.

Proof that its modelling for advantage.

+1 SonofTerra, you obviously have a better grasp of English than I do.

Polonius wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:

Polonius wrote:DCAs are not explicitly allowed axes. They are only allowed "waht the model has." They are therefore only allowed axes due to modelling.

Thus, modelling grants an advantage that did not exist prior to the modelling.

DCAs are explictly allowed axes though. They have two weapons, of the category 'Power Weapons' - Axes are in that category. The way you know which weapon they have, while playing the game, is to LOOK AT THEM. Just like you look at the flamer to know a marine has a flamer.


Or are you claiming the chart listing the type of Power Weapons does not explicitly tell us what the rulebook means by 'power weapons'?

It says to look at the model. It does not say you can model tehm with axes.

Prior to any conversion to an ax, there does not exist the option to give them an ax. You have to create a model with an ax for the option to gain an ax to appear.

It's convoluted, which is why I reject the idea. It bascially states that the option to build a DCA with axes doesn't exist until it's actually built.

Surely no model using the old "Power Weapon" wargear entry has the option to gain an axe until it has been built with an axe?

Changing tack...

Suppose that GW does eventually say that a squad of DCA can model whatever the hell weapons they want on there and they are legit.. I could see a lot of headaches.

I have ..

4 with axe/sword
3 with maul/axe
1 with maul/stave
1 with sword/spear
1 with spear/axe

Yikes!

SonofTerra wrote:Proof that its modelling for advantage.

So uninteresting. Your analogy is absolutely miserable and your post isn't even really on topic. What you should've done is try to argue that what I said in my post either is a) not modeling for advantage or b) modeling for advantage but still either legal or just allowed. Instead you wanted to tell us that you almost died of laughter when you read something that actually made sense, and it motivated you to write something totally nonsensical.

A Town Called Malus wrote:Surely no model using the old "Power Weapon" wargear entry has the option to gain an axe until it has been built with an axe?

Ok, but people are saying you are not allowed to build it with one since GW does not have pictures of that on their website.

I think everyone agrees that models with an axe have an axe, and those without do not.
Some people just think that the rulebook option to use a power weapon that looks like an axe as a power axe cannot be used even if codex legal and WYSIWYG with GW bits and models.

The problem I have with it is switching only one of a model's (which doesn't pay for it's power weapons separately) two power weapons.

It seems wrong to be able to give a unit tactical utility that wasn't intended when it's rules were written.

Therion wrote:So uninteresting.

He was pointing out absurdity, not trying to interest you.

Harping on MFA is basically against board rules though, unless I misread.

That is not a game rule, FAQ, or anything supported now.
The rules themselves do not back you - and falling back to dictionary words for game usage is also wrong, akin to implying my grasp of English was the problem instead of my inability to take your house rules to heart.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eldarain wrote:The problem I have with it is switching only one of a model's (which doesn't pay for it's power weapons separately) two power weapons.

It seems wrong to be able to give a unit tactical utility that wasn't intended when it's rules were written.

So what if it isn't switched? The codex does NOT say they have power swords, only power weapons, and the main rules say that power weapons can be multiple things - thus the debate.

Eldarain wrote:The problem I have with it is switching only one of a model's (which doesn't pay for it's power weapons separately) two power weapons.

It seems wrong to be able to give a unit tactical utility that wasn't intended when it's rules were written.

DCA are far worse now than they were in 5th edition, even with the axe / sword combo.


PS - How do you know GW's intent, are you a spy?

Eldarain wrote:The problem I have with it is switching only one of a model's (which doesn't pay for it's power weapons separately) two power weapons.

It seems wrong to be able to give a unit tactical utility that wasn't intended when it's rules were written.

What tactical utility is it gaining? The ability to negate a 2+ save?

When the rules were written it did that with its power weapons, no matter what they looked like.

Harping on MFA is basically against board rules though, unless I misread.

Yet the moderators themselves have partaken in the discussion and allowed this to go on for 12 pages when it was obvious from the start it was only going to be a last word contest, back patting and attempts of shout downing those who were putting forward reasonable arguments. The appearance of Polonius and his admittance that this is a clear case of MFA but should still be allowed saved the discussion from becoming a total travesty. Frankly, there's no further need for this thread to be open. We've established the issues and agreed that MFA is a house rule and that the extent of allowable MFA depends from club to club, and that only time will tell if an universal interpretation of these rules manifests itself or not.

Therion wrote:

Harping on MFA is basically against board rules though, unless I misread.

Yet the moderators themselves have partaken in the discussion and allowed this to go on for 12 pages when it was obvious from the start it was only going to be a last word contest, back patting and attempts of shout downing those who were putting forward reasonable arguments. The appearance of Polonius and his admittance that this is a question of MFA but should still be allowed save the discussion from becoming a total travesty. Frankly, there's no further need for this thread to be open. We've established the issues and agreed that MFA is a house rule and that the extent of allowable MFA depends from club to club, and that only time will tell if an universal interpretation of these rules manifests itself or not.

Correct. Neither did I report it. The reason I mention it is you are repeatedly breaking them here, and it would be a pity if someone DID complain - having people to debate with is the best part about YMDC.

The question was not posted as HWYPI, in which case your house rules have some bearing.

The rules themselves still do not agree with you however, so until then it is uninteresting you are waiting for universal acceptance.

Eldarain wrote:
It seems wrong to be able to give a unit tactical utility that wasn't intended when it's rules were written.

Yeah but this applies to a lot of things in 6th.

They could have very easily covered this in the FAQs if they intended to lock PWs. Its absence implies that anywhere a vague 'Power weapon' is mentioned, it can be modelled to fit any of the four types.

Seriously though, I guess Therions subtle tone shift and Polonius showcasing his ability to see two sides of an arguement have finally weeded through all the 1 sided grandstanding. It's going to either be a personal choice or an orginizational one, untill GW address that little tidbit.

Therion, if you would be so kind, it would be really good for the thread if you answered my questions, or more precisely, responded to my various scenarios with answers on whether or not a specific type of power weapon can be modeled (note that each numbered question is independent from the others):

1. What do I do with a guy I have to build, which there is no model for, which can take a power weapon? Cry in a corner in despair, because I am not permitted to give him ANY type of power weapon, since no model of the guy exists?

A. Assume he can be made from a kit, which has multiple types of power weapon options.
B. Assume he cannot be made from a kit.

2. What happens if a power weaponed model exists, but it has been out of circulation for 20 years (so it is no longer made), and it is also the wrong size compared to current infantry models of the exact same type (ie marine or guard). Do I have to use that model's power weapon type and do I have to make a model the same exact size? Or do I have to go to an auction and shell out $$$ to get that old model?

3. What if the powered weapon model is for sale, but only in Japan, and in fact was never for sale in my country? Must I use that specific power weapon type?

4. What if GW had a special super rare version of the powered weaponed model, with a different type of power weapon, where only 5 were made, and never sold to anyone, but given out as prizes. Can I use that wargear option? If yes, do I need to have one of the 5 super rare models, or can I scratch build one with the same power weapon type?

5. What if the super special rare versions were made, shown to everyone and well known, but then in a freak accident were destroyed by a meteor. That's right, a meteor, not a meteorite. They were never made again. They literally do not exist anymore, except perhaps, in our hearts. Can I use their wargear?

6. So a model exists, with a power weapon of a certain type. GW discontinues it and replaces it with a new model, with a power weapon of a different type. Which way can I model my dude? Both? Only the latter? Does it matter if I scratch build the guy or have one of the models in my possesion?

Thanks!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Maige wrote:They could have very easily covered this in the FAQs if they intended to lock PWs. Its absence implies that anywhere a vague 'Power weapon' is mentioned, it can be modelled to fit any of the four types.

Also, a few times in the FAQs they errated things to go from a specific type of power weapon, to just "power weapon."

Oh i agree, it is totally non-sensical! and the best part is, its exactly what you wrote too!

The post of yours i quoted totally proved that modelling any weapon/upgrade/etc on a model, which wasn't there before, is done so for an in game advantage. It's true i wont argue that.

I think my analogy was spot on. Changing weapons around is modelling for an advantage. whether its so a model has 2 different power weapons, or a different gun, or the multitude of other upgrades this fabulous game provides.

If you want my opinion or arguement whether its not modelling for advantage i'll give you that opinion.

By your definition, anytime someone alters a model, in any way, to make that model do more damage or gain an in game boon, which is totally allowed by the rules (where i agree, that for example DCA's can have 2 different PW's) or hell, to even exist, after all it is an advantage to you to actually have enough models to play, is MFA. I disagree wholeheartedly. I think doing that is within the spirit of the game, and although may be considered to be in the "more competitive" mindset is still 100% legal.

Modelling for advantage, to me, is when you physically alter the size or dimensions of a model to gain UNFAIR advantages. ex. making all your models in the prone position so that they cannot be seen, or will at least always be in cover. This is clearly not in the spirit of the game, and while the intent may not have even been malicious, it is still clearly MFA

And to add a question to JOEMAMA's list, although slightly different

So if a DCA with 2 different weapons is illegal, what about a character where i have the option of buying two PW's? Am i forced to do 2 of the same, do they have to be swords because that is what comes in the SM kits? can Dark angels do a maul and a sword because both are on the sprue, even though if i went by the codex my list would say " 2 powerweapons" ( which, btw, I would differentiate on my list due to the new PW rules)

And just because, apologies to both Jidmah and Therion. I really did not think you were serious when you said it was legal to swap the weapons for some models but not others, that is why I got so snarky.

kirsanth wrote:The rules themselves still do not agree with you however, so until then it is uninteresting you are waiting for universal acceptance.

You're incorrect because the house rules are just as important as the official rules. Why is that you say? Because every house and tournament I've been to has had them. You might consider some of them natural and to be expected but that means you've unconciously become so accustomed to all types of house rules and interpretations that you don't even think about them anymore. I've never played anywhere where blatant MFA like crouching Wraithlords and grot tanks and custom weapon positions was allowed despite it being a house rule. Smaller incidents of MFA might be allowed to the extent that they're not even thought of. Most of the hyperbole in this thread is purely theoretical.

And just because, apologies to both Jidmah and Therion. I really did not think you were serious when you said it was legal to swap the weapons for some models but not others, that is why I got so snarky.

No need to apologise to me atleast. I know YMDC can get heated. I hope you realise I never intended any offence either.

No.
Read "Power Weapons" again.

There are 4 types of power weapons - axes, swords, mauls, lances.

You HAVE to have one unless you power weapon has different rules - and if the model has an axe, the rules tell you to use the rules for axes.
That is fact.

Therion wrote:

kirsanth wrote:The rules themselves still do not agree with you however, so until then it is uninteresting you are waiting for universal acceptance.

You're incorrect because the house rules are just as important as the official rules. Why is that you say? Because every house and tournament I've been to has had them. You might consider some of them natural and to be expected but that means you've unconciously become so accustomed to all types of house rules and interpretations that you don't even think about them anymore. I've never played anywhere where blatant MFA like crouching Wraithlords and grot tanks and custom weapon positions was allowed despite it being a house rule. Smaller incidents of MFA might be allowed to the extent that they're not even thought of. Most of the hyperbole in this thread is purely theoretical.

A house rule does not belong in YMDC. This is strictly about the rules in the Official Codices and FAQs and the Official Rulebook and how they interact with each other and the models used to play the game.

A Town Called Malus wrote:
A house rule does not belong in YMDC.

That is something you need to bring up with the original poster of the thread and the moderators, not me. Every single page of this thread has been about MFA which is a house rule.

Thunderfrog wrote:Changing tack...

Suppose that GW does eventually say that a squad of DCA can model whatever the hell weapons they want on there and they are legit.. I could see a lot of headaches.

I have ..

4 with axe/sword
3 with maul/axe
1 with maul/stave
1 with sword/spear
1 with spear/axe

Yikes!

What Yikes?

The rules cover that situation; you decide which weapon to use, and you get the +1 attack for multiple CC weapons.

So in your example, if the unit is up against a unit of T7 Save 3+ models, they could all use Axes and Mauls(Maul and Staff are the same for the Power weapon Family BTW) to allow themselves to actually be capable of wounding. Then in another combat that game against some Ork Boyz, they could switch to their Lances and Swords.

The rules you are looking for are on page 51of the BRB under the heading "More than One Weapon"

Therion, since you are active and replying, it would really, *really* clarify your position if you could answer my questions above.

Therion wrote:No need to apologise to me atleast. I know YMDC can get heated. I hope you realise I never intended any offence either.

I am not apologetic for the debate! Just some of the random silly snark that was close to what I called you out on; I read back a few pages and I was not reading enough before hitting enter.


I have been laughing and reading through most of this.
I do not bother to disagree without at least reading the point - the assumptions get one more than the actual text.

Therion wrote: Most of the hyperbole in this thread is purely theoretical.

And yet when I offered a real world example in this thread, I was told to count them as swords, ignoring the fact that this breaks WYSIWYG.

Therion wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:
A house rule does not belong in YMDC.

That is something you need to bring up with the original poster of the thread and the moderators, not me. Every single page of this thread has been about MFA which is a house rule.

I suggest you re-read the OP

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?

Nowhere is MFA mentioned. They are simply asking whether they could legally replace a models standard, generic "Power Weapon" with one which has different rules but is still under the mantle of being a "Power Weapon"

The last post on page 1 mentions MFA though!

Joe Mama wrote:Therion, if you would be so kind, it would be really good for the thread if you answered my questions, or more precisely, responded to my various scenarios with answers

Allright I'll do that Joe and then I have to get some sleep since it's near 4am here. I'm in no position to universally tell what you have to do, so I'll just tell you what I'd do in your scenarios.

What do I do with a guy I have to build, which there is no model for, which can take a power weapon?

If there is no official model available at all and we have no hint of what it should look like I'd just follow the game rules. For example, if GW had never made a model for Death Cult Assassins I would try to make my own scratch builds regular infantry sized and armed with any combination of two power weapons since even the background only tells us they are 'blades'. When Tervigons didn't have models people assumed they'll go on monster bases and usually made them Carnifex sized. This was very reasonable despite it being a case of following a house rule. Afterall by the official rules the players could've made the Tervigons nearly any shape or size.

What happens if a power weaponed model exists, but it has been out of circulation for 20 years (so it is no longer made), and it is also the wrong size compared to current infantry models of the exact same type (ie marine or guard). Do I have to use that model's power weapon type and do I have to make a model the same exact size? Or do I have to go to an auction and shell out $$$ to get that old model?

Jidmah's argument is that because the official model shows what weapons the unit should have you should model your custom model's weapons likewise. Never before 6th was this an issue at all. I'm now more on the side of Polonius that minor MFA can be allowed because it might not be considered unfair or unreasonable. Why my stance was firm on the subject is that the matter is a slippery slope and players often seek every advantage they can. Therefore I rather go against MFA of all types.

What if the powered weapon model is for sale, but only in Japan, and in fact was never for sale in my country? Must I use that specific power weapon type?

See previous.

What if GW had a special super rare version of the powered weaponed model, with a different type of power weapon, where only 5 were made, and never sold to anyone, but given out as prizes. Can I use that wargear option? If yes, do I need to have one of the 5 super rare models, or can I scratch build one with the same power weapon type?

See previous. Basically the argument is that you can scratch build your model to be of similar physical dimensions as the original model supplied by the parent company and armed with weapons that have the same in game effect.

What if the super special rare versions were made, shown to everyone and well known, but then in a freak accident were destroyed by a meteor. That's right, a meteor, not a meteorite. They were never made again. They literally do not exist anymore, except perhaps, in our hearts. Can I use their wargear?

See previous. You don't need to have access to these extinct models if we still know what they were armed with. I think you'll agree that this is an unlikely scenario though.

So a model exists, with a power weapon of a certain type. GW discontinues it and replaces it with a new model, with a power weapon of a different type. Which way can I model my dude? Both? Only the latter? Does it matter if I scratch build the guy or have one of the models in my possesion?

There would be a clear argument that the new version supersedes the old one. I however would allow either model's weaponry to be used because there is a clear precedent that the models can be armed that way. If you told me you aren't modelling for advantage I'd believe you, especially if there still was no word from GW about how these issues should be resolved.

Considering how many unanswered rulebook questions there are and how many people are claiming the new erratas need FAQs, we might get some new information in the near future.

Good night!

In a Sisters army, the standard veterans only come with a chain sword and a plasma pistol. It's not modeling for advantage if I clip off the chain sword, and add a power sword, and clip off the plasma pistol and add a bolt pistol, by a lot of defenitions in this thread, it would be considered cheating, because it's not the equipment that comes standard on the model, but it is allowed by their codex as a purchasable item. Same can be said with adding an Eviserator on a cannoness, her pack doesn't come with one, but if I want her to have one, I have to model it myself.

This is the exact same thing as clipping off 1 power sword on a DCA, and putting on a power Axe. They have 2 weapons, and training from the death cult, why can't they use two different weapons to varying effects? This is the same as when a Samurai uses 1 long blade and 1 short blade, both are used for different purposes and present a tactical advantage for the user. I believe this to be the same case here. As far as I see, if you don't try and wrap the wording around, and yell cheater everywhere, I don't see the reason where it says that this is not allowed, nor is it cheese or cheating, merely giving a tactical advantage to the user as intended.

I think the 6th edition codex for most armies will bring in stricter naming of weapons. I can see the term "power weapons" disappearing as this gives too much freedom and versatility in regards to a single units load out if not even eventually FAQ'd out because some specific lining from GW itself would be nice just to set these kinds of debates, that are more then likely happening everywhere aside.

Either way as codex's are redone I believe that people that altered there models may end up having to alter back, the eldar codex for an example when that is released they may and I think likely will find that it will be reinforced as to what power weapons exactly a banshee can use rather then it being left to the discretion of the owner.

That said there is a possibility with the way how wound allocation has changed now - not dependant on load outs any-more, that they may in fact keep things this way in which case some legit clarification must happen at some point.

Sasa0mg wrote:I think the 6th edition codex for most armies will bring in stricter naming of weapons. I can see the term "power weapons" disappearing as this gives too much freedom and versatility in regards to a single units load out if not even eventually FAQ'd out because some specific lining from GW itself would be nice just to set these kinds of debates, that are more then likely happening everywhere aside.

Again, this seems to be predicated on the idea that GW didn't intend for models to have free access to any of the power weapon variants.

What you're seeing as 'too much freedom' I'm seeing as a deliberate design feature.

insaniak wrote:

Sasa0mg wrote:I think the 6th edition codex for most armies will bring in stricter naming of weapons. I can see the term "power weapons" disappearing as this gives too much freedom and versatility in regards to a single units load out if not even eventually FAQ'd out because some specific lining from GW itself would be nice just to set these kinds of debates, that are more then likely happening everywhere aside.

Again, this seems to be predicated on the idea that GW didn't intend for models to have free access to any of the power weapon variants.

What you're seeing as 'too much freedom' I'm seeing as a deliberate design feature.

With the changes people have noted in FAQs (Power Sword in wargear selection being replaced with catch-all Power Weapon) I would agree with the cat over the lips here.

If they do stop using the term "Power Weapon" in wargear entries I imagine it'll be replaced with Power Sword/Power Axe/Power Maul/Power Spear all for the same points cost.

"look at the model" - what model? The one on the table in front of you, that may have been converted but is the appropriate size o=and on the correct base or the one on the GW page?

Looking at the GW web site for SM Commanders there are only two pictures one with some kind of pistol and a sword, the other with pistol and LC. Are they the only options we can build?

Can a SM Tactical squad only be equipped with 7 bolters, 1 ML, 1 flamer, and 1 bolt pistol and CCW? That's what the picture shows.

Also, the whole argument about MFA is grounded in a belief that most people reject: that any deviation from "official" models is somehow a problem.

The argument relies on the idea that only the official models that GW has released show the modeling options that should be followed, since in this case modelling dictates rules options.

The problem is that most people don't agree with that basic assumption. Most people find varying forms of "counts-as" to be perfectly fine. There are arguments being made here that even a simple weapon swap somehow makes a model counts as and therefore potentially suspect.

Unless I've completely misread the community, conversions along that order have always been encouraged (often with higher paint scores).

So, for people steeped in that culture, the idea that a model's weapon options be restricted to the GW models is foreign. I mean, we've always been able to replace a power sword with a power ax. Since the rules all seem (more or less) balanced, and since power weapons as a whole took a nerf, why not allow the most possible freedom?

I mean, you end up in a situation where, the best possible advantage a DCA player ends up with is a unit that's still not quite as good as it was a week ago.

Now, one reason I tend to avoid YMDC is because there is a certain personality type that tends to see all variances from their view of the rules with harsh contempt. Genuine rules issues are interesting to iron out, but what's frustrating is to see two people arguing when it is clear neither can really relate to the other.

Polonius wrote:I tend to avoid YMDC

That was my take away from that post and it made me sad.
The rest I agreed with as I read it, and still do, but . . . yea.



I think that the rest of your point is why I posted like a goon for a while in this thread as an odd correlation.
Everyone I have every met, read, or corresponded with about the hobby includes customizing models beyond the instructions in the box.
Asserting that is illegal seemed farcical on more levels than I can think.

I thought myself rather literal in interpretation, but now I am coming to wonder if I am (just?) getting old.
heh(?)

Well, YMDC is incredibly frustrating for me, due to my profession. We're in the business of resolving questions, not debating them. Absent a deciding body, I'm just arguing into a room.

I step away and my post just explodes!

I'd be interested in what the TO would rule on this...



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:Well, YMDC is incredibly frustrating for me, due to my profession. We're in the business of resolving questions, not debating them. Absent a deciding body, I'm just arguing into a room.

But you "making the case" for both sides of the equation was simply... awesome-sauce!

Kommissar Kel wrote:

Thunderfrog wrote:Changing tack...

Suppose that GW does eventually say that a squad of DCA can model whatever the hell weapons they want on there and they are legit.. I could see a lot of headaches.

I have ..

4 with axe/sword
3 with maul/axe
1 with maul/stave
1 with sword/spear
1 with spear/axe

Yikes!

What Yikes?

The rules cover that situation; you decide which weapon to use, and you get the +1 attack for multiple CC weapons.

So in your example, if the unit is up against a unit of T7 Save 3+ models, they could all use Axes and Mauls(Maul and Staff are the same for the Power weapon Family BTW) to allow themselves to actually be capable of wounding. Then in another combat that game against some Ork Boyz, they could switch to their Lances and Swords.

The rules you are looking for are on page 51of the BRB under the heading "More than One Weapon"

Thanks. Is nice to have such flexibility, unless it gets changed in a future FAQ.

Thunderfrog wrote:Thanks. Is nice to have such flexibility, until it gets changed in a future FAQ or codex.

I played with Carnifexes in 4e.
So, yes. Yes it is.

Heh. I think most of us are used to changing armies. (looks wistfully at his redemptionists)

It's very straight forward I think:

Codex says a model can take power weapons.
FAQs say a model can take power weapons.
Rulebook says there are 4 different categories of power weapons.
No where in any of the three does it put a regulation on those categories aside from WYSIWYG.

From a modelling point of view:
Most models/units have codex options which aren't available to them on the sprue.
Some of them have options which aren't even represented in the entire extended force.
Some of them have options which require you cut, glue and convert.

Why is having a DCA or an Archon with a 'Power Axe' such an aberration to the rules?

Maige wrote:It's very straight forward I think:

Codex says a model can take power weapons.
FAQs say a model can take power weapons.
Rulebook says there are 4 different categories of power weapons.
No where in any of the three does it put a regulation on those categories aside from WYSIWYG.

From a modelling point of view:
Most models/units have codex options which aren't available to them on the sprue.
Some of them have options which aren't even represented in the entire extended force.
Some of them have options which require you cut, glue and convert.

Why is having a DCA or an Archon with a 'Power Axe' such an aberration to the rules?

From what I gather, it isn't that they have them, it's that it could be seen as a tiny step towards modeling for (important part) unfair advantage. Per IZ's arguements, it's possible to equip 10 DCA's with 1 axe and 1 sword each. Now, only at the cost of plastic and a little glue, you have a unit that can either kill termies or kill marines. It's a lot of flexibility for no extra cost. Some people don't see that too far removed from making a Vindicare Sniper who lays prone on the ground and has a 5 inch long gun. (which very clearly gives a LoS and a Gun Range advantage.)

Maige wrote:It's very straight forward I think:

Codex says a model can take power weapons.
FAQs say a model can take power weapons.
Rulebook says there are 4 different categories of power weapons.
No where in any of the three does it put a regulation on those categories aside from WYSIWYG.

From a modelling point of view:
Most models/units have codex options which aren't available to them on the sprue.
Some of them have options which aren't even represented in the entire extended force.
Some of them have options which require you cut, glue and convert.

Why is having a DCA or an Archon with a 'Power Axe' such an aberration to the rules?

I hadn't thought of that... Archon with "Powa Ax"!

Duuuuuuude!

Oh FETH! Hope I don't start off another storm!

Thunderfrog wrote:
From what I gather, it isn't that they have them, it's that it could be seen as a tiny step towards modeling for (important part) unfair advantage. Per IZ's arguements, it's possible to equip 10 DCA's with 1 axe and 1 sword each. Now, only at the cost of plastic and a little glue, you have a unit that can either kill termies or kill marines. It's a lot of flexibility for no extra cost. Some people don't see that too far removed from making a Vindicare Sniper who lays prone on the ground and has a 5 inch long gun. (which very clearly gives a LoS and a Gun Range advantage.)

See Underlined. Last week (before 6th edition) a unit of 10 DCA could have done that anyway. Now, you have a way so they still can do that for the same points.

Whether something is better or worse does not have any bearing on whether that change is legal and valid.

If you think this is wrong or right because of how it affects your army, please stop posting about this in rules debates.

True, but last week they wouldn't have had +1 strength or had access to stunning maults with +2 strength.

What happened in 5th isn't really important anymore.

Don't get me wrong, I get where your coming from and completely agree, but I was pointing out to Maige why people were making doomfaces.

The problem here, in my humble opinion, is that many people are arguing RAI. I think we can all agree that the RAW on what power weapons are and what a model has is a bit, well, janky. So, instead we're left with two camps:
A. Thinks what the model is known for carrying is what they carry and we base what it counts as off that.
B. Thinks that the power weapon rule allows for people to choose what power weapon their models carry.

I allign myself in camp B, because camp B just sounds fun. I like the idea of personally choosing what my models do and carry, and have the equivalent of 4 choices instead of 1 per model with a power weapon just adds a really neat element of customization. Sure, it may end up "broken", but this is how my play group has decided to play it until it is proven as such or FAQ-ed into camp-A's perspective.

Why can't we all be friends? :[

+1 for the B camp here as well, but mostly because I interpret the Power Weapon rules as indicating that you go by what the unit is modeled with.. and you the modeler, get to make that choice.

Thunderfrog wrote:True, but last week they wouldn't have had +1 strength or had access to stunning maults with +2 strength

Like the other guy said, it doesn't matter whether or not the change is better or worse, that has no bearing on the legality of it.

Also, you aren't even correct about this, 6th edition DCA with axes are still significantly worse than 5th edition DCA. To realistically hurt terminators they have to now swing at the slowest possible speed, slower than all terminators except for those with fists and hammers who are also at Initiative 1. Where before they could get all their armor ignoring hits in before every terminator in the game except GK ones with halberds. Now they will get hit back and surely be wiped out. Which is fine, they were pretty ridiculous before. DCA are still a glass cannon, same amount of glass, but the cannon has been shrunk down quite a bit.

whembly wrote:[

I hadn't thought of that... Archon with "Powa Ax"!

Duuuuuuude!

Oh FETH! Hope I don't start off another storm!

I actually went into detail a few posts back:



But my post was ignored within the raging debate. Point is any model that could duel wield in 5th was also MFA when they cut a weapon to put it on the opposing hand.

Maige wrote:Point is any model that could duel wield in 5th was also MFA when they cut a weapon to put it on the opposing hand.

The point is that the previous rules said the type of weapon did not matter - prior rules actually stated the different weapon types were the same - now the rules state that since you modeled variety you get variety.

That is NOT an advantage.
That is NOT a disadvantage.

That is the rules as written.

lucasbuffalo wrote:The problem here, in my humble opinion, is that many people are arguing RAI. I think we can all agree that the RAW on what power weapons are and what a model has is a bit, well, janky. So, instead we're left with two camps:
A. Thinks what the model is known for carrying is what they carry and we base what it counts as off that.
B. Thinks that the power weapon rule allows for people to choose what power weapon their models carry.

Camp A has serious issues with their argument. What is a Wolf Guard "known" for carrying? There are no GW models of wolf guard with power weapons for sale. When people aren't giving them fists, I've seen swords, butcher knives, maces, hatchets and all sorts of other things which count as power weapons. That's just one example out of dozens, if not 100s. Looking at other space marine sarges is sillier (tons of options, barely any 'known' models). Heck, using 'A' to model HQs makes even more ridiculous. There are only a couple of 'Rune Priests' but not nearly enough to have all the options one can put on a RP.

And to go down even more ridiculous territory, based on the answers to my questions, a super limited edition sculpt, never even sold, supposedly tells us what is the proper way to model a 'power weapon' for a specific model. This never sold item would restrict us from say, using a sword, since it had a halberd. Er, what? Or, if you prefer, a model that hasn't been sold for 20 years, which is the wrong size when compared to models of the current day, would also tell us how we have to model our power weapons. Yeah, sure thing there. With "logic" like that, I don't think we need to even bother with arguing anymore.

Why can't we all be friends? :[

Because.

Joe Mama wrote:

Thunderfrog wrote:True, but last week they wouldn't have had +1 strength or had access to stunning maults with +2 strength

Like the other guy said, it doesn't matter whether or not the change is better or worse, that has no bearing on the legality of it.

Also, you aren't even correct about this, 6th edition DCA with axes are still significantly worse than 5th edition DCA. To realistically hurt terminators they have to now swing at the slowest possible speed, slower than all terminators except for those with fists and hammers who are also at Initiative 1. Where before they could get all their armor ignoring hits in before every terminator in the game except GK ones with halberds. Now they will get hit back and surely be wiped out. Which is fine, they were pretty ridiculous before. DCA are still a glass cannon, same amount of glass, but the cannon has been shrunk down quite a bit.

Easy Joe. You've been fired up all night and consistantly trying to browbeat people.

I don't give a damn whether they are better or worse, nor do I feel it has any bearing on whether or not the loadout is legal. I know the legality isn't equal to effectiveness. It could be said that by your repeated attempts to point out they've gotten worse (which they have vs TEQ I believe) you seem to think their mini-nerf vs the troop type is evidence that they should be allowed to model 1 and 1 just to make up for what they've lost.

My point about the axes and mauls were to let ToBeWilly know that I didn't consider their abilities from last edition worth talking about, as this is 6th and not 5th. Also, before you try to jump all over me, note this post:

+1 for the B camp here as well, but mostly because I interpret the Power Weapon rules as indicating that you go by what the unit is modeled with.. and you the modeler, get to make that choice.

I agree with you, but I was simply explaining to Maige the relative viewpoints of those who didn't.

Let's not forget that while power weapons gained options (ax/maul/sword), this is in the context of an overall reduction in effectivness.

A weapon that, one week ago, was essentially AP2 is now only AP3. Being able to trade a poor mans (5th edition style) power weapon for a poor man's power fist seems like an even trade to me.

If the argument is that you only gain an advantage by modelling, I think it's because GW wants to compensate for the loss.

kirsanth wrote:The point is that the previous rules said the type of weapon did not matter - prior rules actually stated the different weapon types were the same - now the rules state that since you modeled variety you get variety.

That is NOT an advantage.
That is NOT a disadvantage.

That is the rules as written.

Well how do I put a Djin Blade on an Archon then? It is illustrated in the dex as a sort of cross between a Huskblade and Venom blade with a demonic visage on the hilt. It doesn't even exist in plastic form, you have to stylise your own.

Same deal with putting an Agonizer on a right hand. They don't exist, you have to chop up your own.

There are many examples of 'modelling variety' in order to get variety, even prior to 6th edition. Advantage is irrelevant, as you said.

Polonius wrote:Let's not forget that while power weapons gained options (ax/maul/sword), this is in the context of an overall reduction in effectivness.

A weapon that, one week ago, was essentially AP2 is now only AP3. Being able to trade a poor mans (5th edition style) power weapon for a poor man's power fist seems like an even trade to me.

If the argument is that you only gain an advantage by modelling, I think it's because GW wants to compensate for the loss.

That's actually a great statement...

Me being an DE player, initially we've been nerfed with the "power weapon" changes... in 5th, we had no problems against 2+ armour.

At least being able to use the Power Ax (as a poor man PF)... they'd have somewhat the same effectiveness as 5th.

Maige wrote:Well how do I put a Djin Blade on an Archon then? It is illustrated in the dex as a sort of cross between a Huskblade and Venom blade with a demonic visage on the hilt. It doesn't even exist in plastic form, you have to stylise your own.

Same deal with putting an Agonizer on a right hand. They don't exist, you have to chop up your own.

There are many examples of 'modelling variety' in order to get variety, even prior to 6th edition. Advantage is irrelevant, as you said.

1/3 of the useful units (UNITS not options) in my codex had not been made by GW until recent months.(bear in mind the release date is years ago)
I am not certain I should be the type you quote for this.

I have said "Model it, convert it, or create it" from the start.
I have not said that your mode is incorrect because I cannot find it on GW website, nor have I said that it is ok to swap an axe for one unit that has it as an option in its codex, but not another option that has it as an option in its codex. If the option is in the rules, you can use its rules - if GW has not made a model for every detail listed it has no bearing on the RAW.

Thunderfrog wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:Also, you aren't even correct about this, 6th edition DCA with axes are still significantly worse than 5th edition DCA. To realistically hurt terminators they have to now swing at the slowest possible speed, slower than all terminators except for those with fists and hammers who are also at Initiative 1. Where before they could get all their armor ignoring hits in before every terminator in the game except GK ones with halberds. Now they will get hit back and surely be wiped out. Which is fine, they were pretty ridiculous before. DCA are still a glass cannon, same amount of glass, but the cannon has been shrunk down quite a bit.

Easy Joe. You've been fired up all night and consistantly trying to browbeat people.

Dude, come on, you can't be that sensitive. You claimed, or at least strongly implied an axe / sword DCA was a big buff, when in fact compared to 5th edition DCA are still much worse even with the axe. I countered that argument with a... counter argument. Don't see why you had to pretend it was personal, or "browbeat"-ing. Gheesh.

Joe Mama wrote:

Thunderfrog wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:Also, you aren't even correct about this, 6th edition DCA with axes are still significantly worse than 5th edition DCA. To realistically hurt terminators they have to now swing at the slowest possible speed, slower than all terminators except for those with fists and hammers who are also at Initiative 1. Where before they could get all their armor ignoring hits in before every terminator in the game except GK ones with halberds. Now they will get hit back and surely be wiped out. Which is fine, they were pretty ridiculous before. DCA are still a glass cannon, same amount of glass, but the cannon has been shrunk down quite a bit.

Easy Joe. You've been fired up all night and consistantly trying to browbeat people.

Dude, come on, you can't be that sensitive. You claimed, or at least strongly implied an axe / sword DCA was a big buff, when in fact compared to 5th edition DCA are still much worse even with the axe. I countered that argument with a... counter argument. Don't see why you had to pretend it was personal, or "browbeat"-ing. Gheesh.

I said people.. not so much me. Your general tone has been pretty standoffish through this entire thread... just saying. Your internet voice booms loud and angry.

Thunderfrog wrote:Some people don't see that too far removed from making a Vindicare Sniper who lays prone on the ground and has a 5 inch long gun. (which very clearly gives a LoS and a Gun Range advantage.)

It gives him a cover advantage... it makes it harder for him to draw LOS to a target, and has no effect on weapon range as that works off the base...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thunderfrog wrote:True, but last week they wouldn't have had +1 strength or had access to stunning maults with +2 strength..

Sure, but last week they had power weapons...

by adding additonal GW wargear, equipment to my model it cannot be construed as MFA.

Every one of your arguments and hyperbolic statements includes the PHYSICAL change of a model, Which in turn affects the PHYSICAL aspect of the game.

smaller/larger models, disparity in weapon locations, LOS issues ALL revolve around the dimensions of said offending model. THAT is MFA, changing the model physically so that it affects the gameboard in a negative way.

by adding a different melee weapon to a hand to hand unit it does not influence the physical nature of the game board. it simply changes the game mechanics.

your arguing over apples and oranges, the real question is whether the rules should allow for divergent weapons, (which according to most they currently do) not whether it is MFA

your MFA standpoint is flawed

RegulusBlack wrote:the real question is whether the rules should allow for divergent weapons, (which according to most they currently do) not whether it is MFA

Precisely, and I think we've given some good examples of other forms of divergence which would be whenever you convert a model into something which is not on the box cover.

RegulusBlack, excellent post.

Regarding the whole illogical rants of MFA,

GW has set the points cost of power weapons to encompass all types of power weapons; maul/sword/staff/axe/etc. Ergo, if a power weapon costs 10pts it is then fact that a maul cost 10pts, a sword cost 10pts, a staff cost 10pts, and so on and so on. In otherwords, GW has taken the stance that all power weapons are equal in value now and therefore any combination of said power weapons are also thus equal in value.

So as to the matter of DCA and swapping in whatever power weapon combinations is desired, who are YOU to label it as MFA when the stance taken by GW is that all types of power weapons and subsequent power weapon combinations are of equal value as proven by them setting the value of all possible options as equal?

Here is my take.

Obviously at this point I think it is fair to state a few facts.

1: A model armed with a power maul and a power axe, by definition, is equipped with 2 power weapons. If your war gear lists 2 power weapons, then your model is legally WYSIWYG.

2: A model that comes with swords, that you model to instead have 2 other kinds of weapons, has been modeled for advantage. However, "MFA" applies to such a broad category of minis, including every mini that has used glue, that the continuum of modeling for advantage includes advantages that are basically still fair and those that are grossly unfair.

3: Thus, while a DCA can be WYSIWYG with a maul and axe at the same time, AND the DCA was modeled for advantage, consensus needs to be reached between players if it is fair or unfair. This is because the game is played with 2 players who must decide between themselves what is fair and unfair modeling, as the guides for modeling are not clear by any stretch.

So this leaves us at an impasse on an online forum, as we all constitute only 1 player in a 2 player game. Thus, while I may feel that modeling an axe and hammer is unfair, my opponent in a game may not... and only the 2 of us in that game can resolve the conflict. In the next game, with the next opponent, we will again have to resolve the same conflict--as the decision made in the first game (perhaps by d6 roll) is in no way binding.

For those that feel that modeling DCA differently is fine, would you have a problem with an opponent who changes the weapons on the model when he sees your list? What about in the middle of a game, after your last 2+ save model is dead? In both cases, WYSIWYG is still met in the regard that the model has 2 power weapons each time the kinds of power weapons change.

Obviously those examples are not related directly, they just try to illustrate my point that there is a line that we all have when it comes to 'fair' versus 'unfair.'

What about in a tourney? Can you change the kinds of weapons that a DCA has inbetween rounds, or would that be frowned upon? What if you change the composition of 2 different DCA units, but keep the total models the same (IE, change 1 unit of DCA from 5 axe/hammer with the 1 unit of DCA with dual swords so now 1 unit has 2 axe/hammers and the other has 3 axe hammers)

Basically, by making weapons have very real in game advantages, but not tying these weapons to an army list but instead vague model WYSIWYG notion, we have introduced a new issue into 40k. This IS a problem, regardless of the individual model in question (be it DCA or Banshee), because again how each of us feel about what is fair and unfair is very different, and the advantages of using the right kind of weapon can not be underestimated.

DevianID wrote:What about in a tourney? Can you change the kinds of weapons that a DCA has inbetween rounds, or would that be frowned upon? What if you change the composition of 2 different DCA units, but keep the total models the same (IE, change 1 unit of DCA from 5 axe/hammer with the 1 unit of DCA with dual swords so now 1 unit has 2 axe/hammers and the other has 3 axe hammers)

The rule tells us quite clearly this can be done, it tells us how to determine with which a model is equipped. I.e. we bend down and look at the model on the table. I'd argue that if the DCA were embarked in a transport, you'd only have to decide which model to set down when they disembark. Because then and only then can you you 'look at the model' itself.

Shandara, while you are not technically wrong that all the combos are WYSIWYG, that doesnt make it right... which was my point. After all, I get to see the models you are using when they are off the table, and if you pull out a tray of 50 different combos of DCA to represent a single unit of 10, with the express intent of using the best ones of those 50 depending on what units are outside the rhino when you disembark, I (and I expect others) will be calling that unfair modeling for advantage.

Now, if you told me when we started what they had and didnt change mid game, I would consider that more fair.

Most fair I think would be to not have 50 DCA that you pick from at the start of each game depending on who you are playing.

DevianID wrote:Shandara, while you are not technically wrong that all the combos are WYSIWYG, that doesnt make it right... which was my point. After all, I get to see the models you are using when they are off the table, and if you pull out a tray of 50 different combos of DCA to represent a single unit of 10, with the express intent of using the best ones of those 50 depending on what units are outside the rhino when you disembark, I (and I expect others) will be calling that unfair modeling for advantage.

Now, if you told me when we started what they had and didnt change mid game, I would consider that more fair.

Most fair I think would be to not have 50 DCA that you pick from at the start of each game depending on who you are playing.

Note I didn't qualify it as fair or unfair (personally I think it's unfair and unsportive), but it does seem supported by the rules as I read them.

Destrado wrote:

Jidmah wrote:
By using the 'eavy armor bits from the boyz sprue or nobz sprue (steel jaw, extra-spiky shoulders). If you fancy, you could even get the metal 'eavy armor bits. 

Yeah, but there isn't exactly anything to go by when we say 'Eavy Armour. Less so in the case of Boyz, but what you count as 'Eavy Armour I could very well assume were the Nobz with the Jaw and some larger shoulder pads, since the official, old metal Nobz with 'Eavy Armour resemble the AOBR nobz, and the latter are stated in the AOBR rulebook to have a 6+ save.

There are 'eavy armor pictures in our very codex. It's the same way you distinguish sluggas from shootaz from big shootaz. You compare them to the pictures in the codex.
I wouldn't pay too much attention to the AOBR rulebook, it also lists orks as not having furious charge. Besides, I don't think that AOBR have 'eavy armor. My 'ard nobz build from the boyz and nobz bits look a lot more bulky than them.
RAW a steeljaw even counts as boss pole (yeah, that's in the codex), but I have never seen anyone use it that way.

They don't come with axes, there isn't a single axe in the box or any Dark Eldar box for that matter :( Well, I'd have to tell you that there weren't axes that looked eldar-ish enough to me, so my Dark Eldar from the Twisted Rune use a heavier sword that is a lot more unwieldy and gives them +1 Str and AP2, at the cost of striking at I1, since the "swords" they use are better represented by the Power Axe rules.

For me the DCA is no different than someone buying a box of Grey Knights and equipping them with whatever is considered the best loadout (Four Halberds and a Hammer?). You're taking a unit and equipping it to suit a battlefield role. The difference being, Terminator Grey Knights have the options, at no cost, to exchange their Nemesis Sword for a Halberd or even the Daemon Hammer (which is basically a Power Fist!) - different wargear at the same points cost, and with much broader differences in gameplay that the miserly DCA having both a PSword and a PAxe.

Problem is, 40k is a permissive rulesset. You require permission for everything. Equipping a halberd on a grand master or a bike on a warboss(there is no model for that either) is explicitly permitted by your codex rules. In addition, GW also gives eplicit permission toplay with their models - if not a single Dark Eldar model has an axe, you have no permission to put axes on them, because you could never look at any stock model and find a power axe. They do provide you with models with power weapons, thus enabling to field the models you included in your army list. It is commonly accepted that your conversions or scatch-builds (or even out-of-print models) may not differ rules-wise from the original model. Just dig up a thread about old trukk or rhinos, you'll see what I mean.

I wouldn't let that heavy sword story fly, though. As someone playing the German equivalent of D&D a lot, I have heard and read way to much power-fluff about how your parents were an ork and an elf, abandoned you to be raised by ogres, then were captured as a slave and fought in arenas while going to magic college in your free time because your second-grade cousin is actually the Wizard of Oz. You see, that's perfectly viable story for a Warrior-Gladiator-Wizard with both ork and elf race boni as well as the ogre culture bonus. No offense, but someone with a good imagination can pretty much cook up decent fluff for things only the worst TFGs would try.

kirsanth wrote:And just because, apologies to both Jidmah and Therion. I really did not think you were serious when you said it was legal to swap the weapons for some models but not others, that is why I got so snarky.

Apology accepted. I don't troll on forums, and I have no problem with admitting that I'm wrong, so yes I am serious. The amounts of trolling, snides and insults on this thread are really a dark hour for dakkadakka. At least someone has the courage to apologize for that. Thanks.

So it's entirely acceptable to field a mob of, say, 10 death company with power mauls? Stick a reclesiarch in for good measure and you have

50(!!) attacks on the charge at WS5, with re-rolls to hit (that's 44.4 hits by my reconning), then strength 6 [i]with re-rolls to wound[i]
That's 28.125 wounds on a bloodthirster, 43 wounds on MEQ.
In fact is there a single unit in the game that could withstand this? A 50 man blob squad I suppose, but they wouldn't get to strike back.

"HUR HUR HUR GW HAFF NURFED ASSAULT HUR HUR" grrr.

Sorry to ask what may seem to be an obvious question, but is there an MFA rule in the BRB? I couldn't find it, but it is a big book!

Sythica wrote:Sorry to ask what may seem to be an obvious question, but is there an MFA rule in the BRB? I couldn't find it, but it is a big book!

GW didn't think it nessesary to tell players "If your opponant models all his troops lying down so you can't see them, he's a dick and you shouldn't play him".
The internet has decided to interpret this as GW being stupid/naive and exploit it to its full advantage. This is why I won't play 40k with strangers

I think this rule is just to bridge the gap between codex release.
Yeah I guess you can replace the power weapon with whatever you want but I get the feeling they inteded it as "Look at what the model originally had and use the stats from the list".

So Djinn Blade is a power weapon that grants 2 extra attacks....I am intended to use powersword stats not say its a Djinn Axe.
Agoniser or Electrocorrosive whip, god knows what profile I choose for them since its a whip.

Its all subjective though so no-one can really answer it. My gut feeling though is that you look at what the original codex allowed you to have and than base your choice upon the default model design.

Restricting yourself to the original codex wording doesn't make sense - the codex was changed to power weapon. There's no reason the cant just leave it at power sword.

DevianID wrote:Shandara, while you are not technically wrong that all the combos are WYSIWYG, that doesnt make it right... which was my point. After all, I get to see the models you are using when they are off the table, and if you pull out a tray of 50 different combos of DCA to represent a single unit of 10, with the express intent of using the best ones of those 50 depending on what units are outside the rhino when you disembark, I (and I expect others) will be calling that unfair modeling for advantage.

Now, if you told me when we started what they had and didnt change mid game, I would consider that more fair.

Most fair I think would be to not have 50 DCA that you pick from at the start of each game depending on who you are playing.

Eh. You select the type of weapons they have when you write the army list. Same as with everything else.

mishka_shaw wrote:So Djinn Blade is a power weapon that grants 2 extra attacks....I am intended to use powersword stats not say its a Djinn Axe.

You intend to not follow the correct rules?

Agoniser or Electrocorrosive whip, god knows what profile I choose for them since its a whip.

I know what profile you choose for them. So does most other posters in this thread.

Why don't you have a Look at Unusual Power weapons. It is on the same page as Power weapons, as a sub-entry.

SO yes; Djinn Blades have no models(bitz), and for all the rules care you can have the Djinn blade represented via your Archon carrying a battle cannon in his hand(or less extreme "form matters not", you could have 1 carrying an Axe, and another with a spear); but the rules are already crystal clear that you follow the profile for Unusual power weapons and apply the special rules of the weapon.

Common consensus also seems to be that you can use a battle cannon as a power maul. It is a blunt object.

Jidmah wrote:Common consensus also seems to be that you can use a battle cannon as a power maul. It is a blunt object.

Interesting straw man. Could you quote the statements in this thread that caused you to assume something so ludicrous?

For one, a battle cannon has a specific 40k function. That function isn't a power maul.
For two, I don't know of any model that is permitted to have a battle cannon and a power weapon.
For three, are you seriously saying that a model like... A Warboss (no idea if they're allowed power weapons or not - but go with this for now) wielding a battle cannon barrel attached to some car batteries (executed well) would be illegal?

Shandara, while you are not technically wrong that all the combos are WYSIWYG, that doesnt make it right...

Not technically wrong is right in a boolean situation like this. The rules allow what he posited. No rule backs or disallows MFA in any way.

Since djinn blad is an unusual pw, it counts as a sword.

pretre wrote:Since djinn blad is an unusual pw, it counts as a sword.

No, it counts as an unusual power weapon.

Which is ap3. You can't have a djinn axe.

pretre wrote:Which is ap3. You can't have a djinn axe.

Sure. But it there ARE rules for unusual power weapons which are what show that. They are different rules (not talking stats) than rules for power swords in general.
I was nitpicking, not disagreeing.

Jidmah: Yes absolutely. If you have a model that can take a Power weapon, you can model a Battle cannon in it's hand and declare that to be its power maul.

Pretre: by rules. You cannot have a Djinn Axe by rules; but your Djinn blade is more than welcome to take the form of an Axe.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Jidmah: Yes absolutely. If you have a model that can take a Power weapon, you can model a Battle cannon in it's hand and declare that to be its power maul.

Awesome. Not only do I agree, but it reminds me of some interesting stories. . . .

"Drive me closer, so I can rip the battle cannon of this tank and beat them with it!"

Crimson wrote:[
Eh. You select the type of weapons they have when you write the army list. Same as with everything else.

You select a 'power weapon' as an option you buy when you write your army list. Determining what type it is is done when you 'look down at the model' when it's on the table.

Shandara wrote:

Crimson wrote:[
Eh. You select the type of weapons they have when you write the army list. Same as with everything else.

You select a 'power weapon' as an option you buy when you write your army list. Determining what type it is is done when you 'look down at the model' when it's on the table.

You USED to select power weapon. The rules have changed since that was true, however.
Now that is simply a category. Like saying you selected Troops.

No Shandara is close to correct.

You select a "Power weapon" when building your Army list(you have no specific options for the individual types in the Codex; so you default to the BRB rules of "base on what the model is carrying).

Determining what type of power weapon you have is now done during Model construction or Purchase.

For Example, I also Play Space Wolves; My Wolf Pack Sprues come with 2 different Power weapons: an Axe and a Sword. When I am buying a Power weapon for my Grey hunters I can either put the Axe or the Sword bit on the model. Whichever Bit I use determines which "Power Weapon" I have chosen for my grey hunter pack.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Shandara is close to correct.
. . .
Whichever Bit I use determines which "Power Weapon" I have chosen for my grey hunter pack.

Yes, exactly.
Nothing allows you to change models during the game, and I have never seen a tourney that allows lists (and thus models) to change between games.
Changing models is changing lists, even if its just because a name is different.

editing to add:
And if you are allowed to change lists, it's irrelevant anyway.
Also, the Troops example is probably bad.
heh

Jidmah

Common consensus also seems to be that you can use a battle cannon as a power maul. It is a blunt object.

If your Battle Cannon changes the physical dimensions of the model in order to exploit the gameboard (i.e. LOS Blocking) you are MFA (did i not explain this earlier?)

equipping a model that already has a power weapon (DCA) with a similar sized weapon that has an equipped difference rather than a physical difference appearently is fine.

your confusing MFA for "Equipping for Advantage".

Jidmah, you need to look to GW for answers regarding axe/sword "exploit" because its the rules set you seem to have a problem with. Not the modeling aspect.

RegulusBlack wrote:

Jidmah

Common consensus also seems to be that you can use a battle cannon as a power maul. It is a blunt object.

If your Battle Cannon changes the physical dimensions of the model in order to exploit the gameboard (i.e. LOS Blocking) you are MFA (did i not explain this earlier?)

equipping a model that already has a power weapon (DCA) with a similar sized weapon that has an equipped difference rather than a physical difference appearently is fine.

your confusing MFA for "Equipping for Advantage".

Jidmah, you need to look to GW for answers regarding axe/sword "exploit" because its the rules set you seem to have a problem with. Not the modeling aspect.

Weapons don't count for LOS; so your argument/Exception is invalid

RegulusBlack wrote:your confusing MFA for "Equipping for Advantage".

Yes, well said! The wording for power weapons is a bit odd, but it really just boils down to choosing equipment. The rules for special marine weapons could have been written in a similar way ("look at the model to see which 'special' weapon it has, flamer, melta or plasma"). It is really and truly just a legal equipment choice.

Shandara wrote:You select a 'power weapon' as an option you buy when you write your army list. Determining what type it is is done when you 'look down at the model' when it's on the table.

This... may be technically true right right now. However, unless you want to be thought of as TFG, I reckon folks will actually write down which power weapons their dudes have in their army list, or at the very least inform the opponent of the types of power weapons well before the game starts.

?? I'm confused what are you trying to tell me, that if i used a Land Raider as my "Power Maul" that it will not block line of site or intervene on models behind it? (which was Jidmah's statement earlier).

My argument/exception is that replacing wargear has to

A : be a game legal option
B : be of similar shape/size/dimensions as the item your replacing so that you cannot be MFA
C : yeah thats pretty much it.

(this is in response to Kel)

I have a question relating to this thread if anyone can help. I have a few unit of Sanguinary Guard that I made a while back for my Red Hunters army. I modeled them with Halberds instead of the usual weapons to fit in with my army theme. With these new rules will my Glaive Encarmine (defined as a two handed master crafted power weapon) count as Unusual Power Weapons or will they count as Halberd/Axes? Am I free to call them either as long as it's specified on the army list? Thanks for any help (it's a big ass book).

Good question. I think there is a thread somewhere dealing with whether or not "mastercrafted" makes the power weapon unusual. I don't remember the answer, if there was one.

The BRB talks about 'unusual' weapons having their own 'unique' CC rules.... whatever that means.

RegulusBlack wrote:?? I'm confused what are you trying to tell me, that if i used a Land Raider as my "Power Maul" that it will not block line of site or intervene on models behind it? (which was Jidmah's statement earlier).

My argument/exception is that replacing wargear has to

A : be a game legal option
B : be of similar shape/size/dimensions as the item your replacing so that you cannot be MFA
C : yeah thats pretty much it.

(this is in response to Kel)

Yes, that is exactly what I am Saying; you ignore weapons Banners and Etc on models for Determining LOS.

I really do not care if you model an entire second 48"x72" table in a Models hand as his Power weapon, said second table does not block LOS and is to be ignored for determining LOS.

BladeWalker wrote:I have a question relating to this thread if anyone can help. I have a few unit of Sanguinary Guard that I made a while back for my Red Hunters army. I modeled them with Halberds instead of the usual weapons to fit in with my army theme. With these new rules will my Glaive Encarmine (defined as a two handed master crafted power weapon) count as Unusual Power Weapons or will they count as Halberd/Axes? Am I free to call them either as long as it's specified on the army list? Thanks for any help (it's a big ass book).

I think the "2-handed" part would make them Unusual/Unique power weapons.

Yeah. The problem is that the rulebook states this:

"Types of Power Weapons"

"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"

And Master-crafted is a special rule. But it also states this:

"Unusual Power Weapons"

"If a power weapon has its own unique close combat rules, treat it as an AP 3 Melee weapon with the additional rules and characteristics presented in its entry."

(Page 61)

Those are your options. The problem is that only if the power weapon does not have a special rule do you look at the model to determine the type, and only if it has unique rules is it AP 3 with those further unique rules applied. Strictly speaking there's just no room to determine what type a generic power weapon is if it does have a special (but non-unique) rule like Master-crafted.

Slinky wrote:

BladeWalker wrote:I have a question relating to this thread if anyone can help. I have a few unit of Sanguinary Guard that I made a while back for my Red Hunters army. I modeled them with Halberds instead of the usual weapons to fit in with my army theme. With these new rules will my Glaive Encarmine (defined as a two handed master crafted power weapon) count as Unusual Power Weapons or will they count as Halberd/Axes? Am I free to call them either as long as it's specified on the army list? Thanks for any help (it's a big ass book).

I think the "2-handed" part would make them Unusual/Unique power weapons.

I don't think so.


The rules for Unusual Power Weapons means that they if have their own unique rules yadda yadda. 2 handed is not a unique rule, its a USR found in the main rule book. As is Master Crafted, Shred, Specialist weapon...


The Nemisis Halberd's +2I bonus would be a unique special rule, Master Crafted/Two handed is not.

So the Sang Guard would be armed with Master Crafted Two Handed Axes.

Grey Templar wrote:

Slinky wrote:

BladeWalker wrote:I have a question relating to this thread if anyone can help. I have a few unit of Sanguinary Guard that I made a while back for my Red Hunters army. I modeled them with Halberds instead of the usual weapons to fit in with my army theme. With these new rules will my Glaive Encarmine (defined as a two handed master crafted power weapon) count as Unusual Power Weapons or will they count as Halberd/Axes? Am I free to call them either as long as it's specified on the army list? Thanks for any help (it's a big ass book).

I think the "2-handed" part would make them Unusual/Unique power weapons.

I don't think so.


The rules for Unusual Power Weapons means that they if have their own unique rules yadda yadda. 2 handed is not a unique rule, its a USR found in the main rule book. As is Master Crafted, Shred, Specialist weapon...


The Nemisis Halberd's +2I bonus would be a unique special rule, Master Crafted/Two handed is not.

So the Sang Guard would be armed with Master Crafted Two Handed Axes.

This was close to my thought process. I did not think that two handed or mc made them unique.

Edit: sorry for minor derail, but I thought this example was relevant to the discussion here. thanks!

Edit Again: Found this thread for others looking for BA PW discussion: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/458860.page

This train went off the rails a long time ago, so I think it's fine.

rigeld2 wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Common consensus also seems to be that you can use a battle cannon as a power maul. It is a blunt object.

Interesting straw man. Could you quote the statements in this thread that caused you to assume something so ludicrous?

For one, a battle cannon has a specific 40k function. That function isn't a power maul.
For two, I don't know of any model that is permitted to have a battle cannon and a power weapon.
For three, are you seriously saying that a model like... A Warboss (no idea if they're allowed power weapons or not - but go with this for now) wielding a battle cannon barrel attached to some car batteries (executed well) would be illegal?

I was merely stating the common consensus, not agreeing nor disagreeing with it in any way. I was also making a joke.

Jidmah wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Common consensus also seems to be that you can use a battle cannon as a power maul. It is a blunt object.

Interesting straw man. Could you quote the statements in this thread that caused you to assume something so ludicrous?

For one, a battle cannon has a specific 40k function. That function isn't a power maul.
For two, I don't know of any model that is permitted to have a battle cannon and a power weapon.
For three, are you seriously saying that a model like... A Warboss (no idea if they're allowed power weapons or not - but go with this for now) wielding a battle cannon barrel attached to some car batteries (executed well) would be illegal?

I was merely stating the common consensus, not agreeing nor disagreeing with it in any way. I was also making a joke.

Except that's not the common consensus. No one has even alluded to it.
It's more insulting than a joke.

Common consensus seems to be that Jidmah will never accept any models except Citadel and then only if they're 100% stock and follow the codex.

See how wrong that is? See how it's a little insulting? Not too funny.

If you think it's common, back it up with evidence. As I asked.

Now I am picturing this, only with tanks:

" border="0" />

Common consensus in this thread is that you look at a model to find out what power weapon it has. If you model a DCA with two battle cannons with battery packs, those are blunt power weapons and thus count as power mauls.

It's a silly example, but isn't that what you guys are all saying? Model first, check rules later?

Jidmah wrote:Common consensus in this thread is that you look at a model to find out what power weapon it has. If you model a DCA with two battle cannons with battery packs, those are blunt power weapons and thus count as power mauls.

Its a silly example, but isn't that what you guys are all saying? Model first, check rules later?

A) that's not what you said originally
B) sure. As long as the conversion is executed well, what's the problem?
Are you refusing any conversions flat out? That's what it seems like you're saying, but I know you're better than that. Heck, based on your Warboss you're a fan of conversions using parts that aren't from an original kit - or should your biker boss be illegal because it's not the Forgeworld one?
http://www.lordmaul.de/warboss.JPG

rigeld2 wrote:

Jidmah wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Common consensus also seems to be that you can use a battle cannon as a power maul. It is a blunt object.

Interesting straw man. Could you quote the statements in this thread that caused you to assume something so ludicrous?

For one, a battle cannon has a specific 40k function. That function isn't a power maul.
For two, I don't know of any model that is permitted to have a battle cannon and a power weapon.
For three, are you seriously saying that a model like... A Warboss (no idea if they're allowed power weapons or not - but go with this for now) wielding a battle cannon barrel attached to some car batteries (executed well) would be illegal?

I was merely stating the common consensus, not agreeing nor disagreeing with it in any way. I was also making a joke.

Except that's not the common consensus. No one has even alluded to it.
It's more insulting than a joke.

Common consensus seems to be that Jidmah will never accept any models except Citadel and then only if they're 100% stock and follow the codex.

See how wrong that is? See how it's a little insulting? Not too funny.

If you think it's common, back it up with evidence. As I asked.

While Jidmah was Joking, he was also completely correct.

You were the one that attached using the rules for a Battle cannon to Jidmah's statement.

I Assumed, based on the Context of this thread, that Jidmah was talking about a model holding a battle cannon(barrel or entire turret) in it's hand, brandished as one would a Club.

If that model had purchased a Power weapon; and the player informed me that the brandished Battle cannon was said power weapon, then yes, I would call that Battle-cannon shaped Power weapon a Power maul.

rigeld2 wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Common consensus in this thread is that you look at a model to find out what power weapon it has. If you model a DCA with two battle cannons with battery packs, those are blunt power weapons and thus count as power mauls.

Its a silly example, but isn't that what you guys are all saying? Model first, check rules later?

A) that's not what you said originally
B) sure. As long as the conversion is executed well, what's the problem?
Are you refusing any conversions flat out? That's what it seems like you're saying, but I know you're better than that.

How about you read any of my posts before keeping claiming stuff like that?

I explicitly explained multiple how I handle my conversions and how I expect conversions to be handled. It's somewhere between the insults/caps locking/trolling/belittling/misquoting on the last ten pages.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thanks, Kel.

Jidmah wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Common consensus in this thread is that you look at a model to find out what power weapon it has. If you model a DCA with two battle cannons with battery packs, those are blunt power weapons and thus count as power mauls.

Its a silly example, but isn't that what you guys are all saying? Model first, check rules later?

A) that's not what you said originally
B) sure. As long as the conversion is executed well, what's the problem?
Are you refusing any conversions flat out? That's what it seems like you're saying, but I know you're better than that.

How about you read any of my posts before keeping claiming stuff like that?

I have. You told me to have my buddy use his DCAs and Crusaders with counts-as power swords (meaning itd break WYSIWYG). Before, that's exactly what they were, unfortunately. Now, 6th gives him the option that you refuse exists.

You have still drawn an arbitrary line and have yet to justify it. What is giving you the permission to draw the line at GW website pictures ( some of which aren't codex legal)?

Unless I've missed you saying something otherwise - in which case I'll apologize.

Hey Jidmah, I asked some questions awhile back, there were 6 of them. They were scenarios actually, asking about what power weapon to model. Would you mind going back and answering them? It would help clarify your point, and lead to less confusion. Thanks.

Edit - You know what, I will repost them.

Here are my various scenarios, please answer on whether or not a specific type of power weapon should be modeled (note that each numbered question is independent from the others):

1. What do I do with a guy I have to build, which there is no model for, which can take a power weapon? Cry in a corner in despair, because I am not permitted to give him ANY type of power weapon, since no model of the guy exists?

A. Assume he can be made from a kit, which has multiple types of power weapon options.
B. Assume he cannot be made from a kit.

2. What happens if a power weaponed model exists, but it has been out of circulation for 20 years (so it is no longer made), and it is also the wrong size compared to current infantry models of the exact same type (ie marine or guard). Do I have to use that model's power weapon type and do I have to make a model the same exact (and wrong by today's standards) size? Or do I have to go to an auction and shell out $$$ to get that old model?

3. What if the powered weapon model is for sale, but only in Japan, and in fact was never for sale in my country? Must I use that specific power weapon type?

4. What if GW had a special super rare version of the powered weaponed model, with a different type of power weapon, where only 5 were made, and never sold to anyone, but given out as prizes. Must I use that wargear option? If yes, do I need to have one of the 5 super rare models, or can I scratch build one with the same power weapon type?

5. What if the super special rare versions were made, never sold, never given to anyone, were however shown to everyone and well known, but then in a freak accident were destroyed by a meteor. That's right, a meteor, not a meteorite. They were never made again. They literally do not exist anymore, except perhaps, in our hearts. Must I use their wargear?

6. So a model exists, with a power weapon of a certain type. GW discontinues it and replaces it with a new model, with a power weapon of a different type. Which way can I model my dude? Both? Only the latter? Does it matter if I scratch build the guy or have one of the models in my possession?

I believe Therion gave you a thorough answer to all six.

Jidmah wrote:I believe Therion gave you a thorough answer to all six.

And you are in complete agreement with him? Are you sure about that?

rigeld2 wrote:

Jidmah wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Common consensus in this thread is that you look at a model to find out what power weapon it has. If you model a DCA with two battle cannons with battery packs, those are blunt power weapons and thus count as power mauls.

Its a silly example, but isn't that what you guys are all saying? Model first, check rules later?

A) that's not what you said originally
B) sure. As long as the conversion is executed well, what's the problem?
Are you refusing any conversions flat out? That's what it seems like you're saying, but I know you're better than that.

How about you read any of my posts before keeping claiming stuff like that?

I have. You told me to have my buddy use his DCAs and Crusaders with counts-as power swords (meaning itd break WYSIWYG). Before, that's exactly what they were, unfortunately. Now, 6th gives him the option that you refuse exists.

You have still drawn an arbitrary line and have yet to justify it. What is giving you the permission to draw the line at GW website pictures ( some of which aren't codex legal)?

Unless I've missed you saying something otherwise - in which case I'll apologize.

If you are so worried about breaking WYSIWYG, then all conversions must be illegal anyway, right? After all, there are no gretchin in the imperial guard.

I'm also not continuing arguing against six people who don't even care to read my posts. Only two people have actually cared about answering to my arguments.

Why should I care about your arguments if you have not disproven my counter-arguments?

Jidmah wrote:I'm also not continuing arguing against six people who don't even care to read my posts. Only two people have actually cared about answering to my arguments.

If you answered my questions that would seriously clarify your position. If your goal is clarity and understanding (instead of complaining) you would jump at the chance to answer them.

Joe Mama wrote:

Jidmah wrote:I believe Therion gave you a thorough answer to all six.

And you are in complete agreement with him? Are you sure about that?

Hey, how about you read my posts?

They also answer all of your six questions.

Jidmah wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:

Jidmah wrote:I believe Therion gave you a thorough answer to all six.

And you are in complete agreement with him? Are you sure about that?

Hey, how about you read my posts?

They also answer all of your six questions.

So you have no desire to discuss in good faith, and you have no desire to further clarify your argument. Sounds like you should never post in this thread again if you feel that way.


PS - Can you point me to where you even remotely discussed never sold special GW models? Or a model the complete wrong size made over 20 years ago?

Joe Mama wrote:

Jidmah wrote:I'm also not continuing arguing against six people who don't even care to read my posts. Only two people have actually cared about answering to my arguments.

If you answered my questions that would seriously clarify your position. If your goal is clarity and understanding (instead of complaining) you would jump at the chance to answer them.

Considering all the snides, insults and general attitude coming from you, your goal has absolutely nothing to do with Warhammer40k rules. Thus, actually summarizing (again!) what I wrote is a waste of time anyways.

Jidmah wrote:Considering all the snides, insults and general attitude coming from you, your goal has absolutely nothing to do with Warhammer40k rules. Thus, actually summarizing (again!) what I wrote is a waste of time anyways.

How sad.

Even if what you say is true (it isn't), we aren't PMing. Multiple people are here, and 100s of lurkers. Do you not care about making a clear, coherent argument? You seemed to care before when you complained about confusion over your posts. Now you are doing your best NOT to clarify. Please stop posting in here if you have no desire to discuss this in good faith.

Weren't you the one rekindling the discussion? Maybe you should stop posting here if you don't care to look at what I previously posted.

Just for all those "poor onlookers":

As long as you find any model ever made by citadel with the weapon you desire, I'm fine with you counting even a bottle cap as that exact model. For me personally even a drawn picture from GW would suffice. If there is no model with any power/force weapon in existence, do whatever you want. You happy now?

I posted this like six time before.

Jidmah wrote:If you are so worried about breaking WYSIWYG, then all conversions must be illegal anyway, right? After all, there are no gretchin in the imperial guard.

That's not what I've said. If all the gretchin are armed with lasguns (and hence WYSIWYG) they're fine. You're the one saying conversions must be armed with what the original GW kit/website allows. The codex gives DCAs two power weapons. Where is it defined that they must be swords?

Why should I care about your arguments if you have not disproven my counter-arguments?

I'm sure I just missed them in the past dozen pages. I'll go back and re-read.

Jidmah wrote:As long as you find any model ever made by citadel with the weapon you desire, I'm fine with you counting even a bottle cap as that exact model. For me personally even a drawn picture from GW would suffice. If there is no model with any power/force weapon in existence, do whatever you want. You happy now?

I posted this like six time before.

No, I don't think you did. Not like this. GW doesn't need to sell a model, it doesn't even need to make a model! A picture from GW is enough. Do book covers count? Endorsed artwork posted on GW's website? What about user submitted artwork that GW posts on their site for a contest? Limited edition promotional materials sent to stores? What about pictures on GW's site showing conversions, mixing kits together? If they featured my sweet sweet DCA, which are a mix of Wood Elves, IG Cadian, GK falchions (and for sake of argument, Empire Axes), would all of a sudden axes be allowed?

Joe Mama wrote:

Jidmah wrote:I just posted what you wanted. I have no interest in continuing the discussion, as there is no point in it.

I disagree with your opinion of being allowed to change models to alter their game performance.

That is not a rule.

Thus there is no ground to argue on.

I have accepted the common consensus of powerweapon = pick one. I still disagree with it, as for me it's on par with any other modeling shenanigans that have come up over the year.

No no. Now it is getting good! You claim a picture from GW is enough. There are further questions for you to answer. Don't leave yet!!!!!

As Joe is quite obviously doing nothing but trolling, I'm out of here.

Jidmah wrote:As Joe is quite obviously doing nothing but trolling, I'm out of here.

What!?

You just claimed pictures from GW, or even drawings, will allow us to model power weapons a certain way. That is something that DEMANDS clarification. I asked perfectly reasonable follow up questions. Shouldn't you need to know the answers to these questions to know what is allowable modeling? Yes, you should. Since you have no desire to continue, it is clear you were never arguing in good faith. Someone could have been trolling here, but it is certainly not me. I am looking for answers.

Jidmah wrote:Weren't you the one rekindling the discussion? Maybe you should stop posting here if you don't care to look at what I previously posted.

Just for all those "poor onlookers":

As long as you find any model ever made by citadel with the weapon you desire, I'm fine with you counting even a bottle cap as that exact model. For me personally even a drawn picture from GW would suffice. If there is no model with any power/force weapon in existence, do whatever you want. You happy now?

I posted this like six time before.

Your opinion with absolutely no rules support. Gotcha!

Testify wrote:The internet has decided to interpret this as GW being stupid/naive and exploit it to its full advantage. This is why I won't play 40k with strangers

'The internet' has done no such thing. The vast majority of players are fully aware of the consequences of more 'creative' modelling, which is why you don't actually see those sort of armies on the table very often.

The issue in this thread is nothing to do with the common view on modelling for advantage, and is simply stuck on whether or not modelling a different power weapon to the one the model comes with actually constitutes modelling for advantage or is an acceptable interpretation of the new rules.


Throwing around baseless generalisations does nothing to further the discussion.

I'm not sure there is a real answer to this question. Certainly, we have to look at the model and WYSIWYG.

This comes down to modeling, and GW does not make any rules about how you can make your models except how to base them and WYSIWYG.

In my playing area, conversions are highly praised above most else. I think around here you'd be hard pressed to find people who would put up a stink over converting your space marine sgt to a power axe, or even your succubus or banshees (gotta look good though!)

I could also see how people might not like conversions which have an in-game effect. I don't think either case is supported by the rules one way or the other.

Every conversion will have an in game effect. From TLOS to the models weapons, something will be different from the stock model.
Otherwise what's the point of converting? If you build to exactly match the stock model you're not really converting...

I already pointed out the invalidity of claiming ingame affects, positive or negative, as a point to argue,

GW did not place a different points value on the types of power weapons you can equip. They did not place a points premium on the types of combinations you can equip with said types of power weapons. In GW's eyes, they have balanced all power weapon types and combinations through the different rules for each type of power weapon.

That is why all this nonsense of modeling for advantage or modeling for ingame affects is a crap argument. It is 100% modeling within the new rules for power weapons that GW has deemed equal by the very fact that all power weapon types cost the same points cost.

Brother Ramses wrote:That is why all this nonsense of modeling for advantage or modeling for ingame affects is a crap argument. It is 100% modeling within the new rules for power weapons that GW has deemed equal by the very fact that all power weapon types cost the same points cost.

Please cite this "modeling within the new rules", I have not found a section on modeling in the new rulebook that would cover how to build your models.

I'm just playing devils advocate, because I think both points of view have validity since there is a lack of RAW on modelling.

Dracos wrote:This comes down to modeling, and GW does not make any rules about how you can make your models except how to base them and WYSIWYG.

Specifically, this comes down to whether you think GW's statement to look at the model to determine what weapon they have is intended to stop people from using anything other than what the model comes with (which leads to the aforementioned Finecast vs plastic Captain silliness) or if you think it's just GW's way of saying that the weapon you choose has to be represented on the model.

I am of the school of thought that it can be abused, though since its only a week old no one has realistically been able to abuse it yet, but i do think the mix is interesting since now you have to gage the use of weather to take the axe/mace/lace/sword since they all have a different role now.

I am still on jidmah's side here. GW doesn't say that the type of weapon is chosen when you make your list. Power weapon is the only option in many cases. To determine the effect your power weapon has, we are told to look at the model. Models have never ever been specified as to be unchanging during or inbeaten games.

So what rule is available to stop abuse from people switching types of power weapons (perhaps mid game) when all types are wysiwyg legal BUT what you see ALSO changes what you get?

DevianID wrote:I am still on jidmah's side here. GW doesn't say that the type of weapon is chosen when you make your list. Power weapon is the only option in many cases. To determine the effect your power weapon has, we are told to look at the model. Models have never ever been specified as to be unchanging during or inbeaten games.

So what rule is available to stop abuse from people switching types of power weapons (perhaps mid game) when all types are wysiwyg legal BUT what you see ALSO changes what you get?

Show me permission to change a model mid-game (with the exception of taking a wrecked/immobilised skimmer off its base). You do that and I will have no problem with you changing a modes power weapon mid-game.

DevianID wrote:I am still on jidmah's side here. GW doesn't say that the type of weapon is chosen when you make your list.

Do the rules present any other time to choose optional load-outs on models?

Power weapon is the only option in many cases.

Power Weapon is the weapon type. The option is to take one of the various types of Power Weapons.

So what rule is available to stop abuse from people switching types of power weapons (perhaps mid game) when all types are wysiwyg legal BUT what you see ALSO changes what you get?

Are you talking about switching models, or just declaring that your power axe is now a power sword?

Because neither of those are going to fly on the table.

Here's a fun question. Along the same lines of what everyone is arguing about... A burna boy can use his burna(If he didn't flame in the previous shooting phase) as a power weapon. Thats all it states in the RAW. Soo..... can I use any kind of power weapon stats available to best fit the situation? Probably not. But then.. wtf stats do I use?!?!?!?!?

I am also not at the point where I can take a side on the modeling all the different power weapons.

EDIT: Nevermind. Found Unusual Force Weapons pg60.

insaniak wrote:

DevianID wrote:I am still on jidmah's side here. GW doesn't say that the type of weapon is chosen when you make your list.

Do the rules present any other time to choose optional load-outs on models?

Power weapon is the only option in many cases.

Power Weapon is the weapon type. The option is to take one of the various Sub-types of Power Weapons.

So what rule is available to stop abuse from people switching types of power weapons (perhaps mid game) when all types are wysiwyg legal BUT what you see ALSO changes what you get?

Are you talking about switching models, or just declaring that your power axe is now a power sword?

Because neither of those are going to fly on the table.

Just had to correct that 1 bit; As you had stated represented the Variations of Power weapon as being different weapon types in their own right(and we know how certain posters get when you make such statements).

Daiyo:Unusual power weapons are on the same page as power weapons(same concept as unusal force weapons, but with power weapons instead, since force weapons rules have no bearing whatsoever on power weapons)

Do the rules present any other time to choose optional load-outs on models?

2 things. First, the power weapons are not optional loadouts in this situation. Second, the rules never give us the option of what kind of power weapon to choose.

Instead we look to the model--not to army list, not to load-out. No, the models wargear is "power weapon" with no other qualifiers.

Power Weapon is the weapon type. The option is to take one of the various types of Power Weapons.

False. I have skimmed the rules through a few times, and I haven't found where the type of power weapon was optional like you said it was. Now, I havent had a huge amount of time with the book, so perhaps I am wrong, but if I am then you should be able to show me something that says you get to pick what kind of power weapon type goes on a model.

The rules state that if the rules for the model do not tell you what kind of power weapon(Sword, Axe, Maul, or Lance), you look to the model.

In this case the DCAs have a Blank "Power weapon" in their rules(2 of them actually).

The stock models Come with either a Single sword, or a Pair of swords(and both of those models have a Pair of Daggers at their hips).

However if you were to convert your DCAs(which many may have when Power weapons was the only type of melee weapon you could get) to have Axes, clubs, or Spears; then the sub-type of power weapon you use will be that which your model is holding.

What has been debated for the last 16 pages is really whether putting axes or clubs on your DCA(or any other model that comes with a particular subtype as a stock model) is legal and/or modeling for advantage.

Here's one I'm wondering about as a Necron player. What would a Lychguard's Hyperphase Sword be classified as? It has "sword" in it's name but has the appearance of an axe. I would much rather run it as an axe than a sword. Losing 1 point of initiative is worth ganing +1 AP and Strength.

This had just come up in a recent thread(Page or 2 back already though).

The Hyperphase sword is modeled after a Kopesh

As the Kopesh was a Farily Top-front heavy Sword it also worked similar to an Axe.

Discuss it with your opponent, but be sure to remain consistent throughout your Army(If 1 hyper phase is an Axe, they should all be axes, vise verse for swords).

insaniak wrote:The issue in this thread is nothing to do with the common view on modelling for advantage, and is simply stuck on whether or not modelling a different power weapon to the one the model comes with actually constitutes modelling for advantage or is an acceptable interpretation of the new rules.

'Modelling for advantage' is not in the rules, so I fail to see the distinction. Modelling within WYSIWYG is allowed, and in fact encouraged by GW, and since axes, mauls and spears are all WYSIWYG power weapons, the issue remains cut and dry in my eyes.

And to clarify: Modelling all your units to be crawling along the ground to gain benefits is also allowed within the rules, I believe. It is modelling for advantage of course, and wether or not you'd put up with it is up to you - I probably wouldn't. But I wouldn't presume to base my refusal to play such an opponent on the rules, it's just really bad sportsmanship. You might argue that swapping two power swords for a power axe and a power maul is bad sportsmanship, too, and that's fine - it's an individual matter where you draw the line. But there's no basis for it in the rules.

I guess to break the arguments for more understandable form, we should use new definition
Modelling For Wargear:
MFW means converting model to have codex legal wargear options that are not present on the "official" model.
Examples: Converting model to have combi-flamer instead of combi-plasma. Converting model to have Power Axe instead of Power Sword.
Strict interpretation of this is that for multi-part plastic kits using weapons from other kits is MFW, examples include giving plasma gun or plasma cannon to tactical marine as they're not options for the official tactical marine kit.
There also seems to be interpretation that argues: "If there exists an official model X with wargear option Z, converting official model Y to have wargear option Z is not MFW".

For sake of argument, it is assumed that all MFW is done using proper sized weapons/other wargear and gives no other in-game advantage except by being WYSIWYG representation of a codex legal wargear option.

Now there are two sides to the DCA argument:
Joemama argues that Modelling For Wargear is distinct, separate concept from Modelling For Advantage. MFW is just representing wargear choices in WYSIWYG manner and MFA still follows the 5e accepted definition, where the in-game advantage gained by MFA is completely separate from the wargear modelled (but obviously might interact with the wargear).

Jidmah argues that Modelling For Wargear is Modelling For Advantage. If official model doesn't have wargear option X modelled, then converting model to have that codex legal wargear is MFA.

Note that arguing that MFW is MFA in some cases (Converting DCA to have power sword and axe) and not in other (converting certain Tyranid models to have Lash Whips) is IMO extremely hypocritical. In both cases, the modelling will give you in-game advantage of having specific wargear. Either both are MFA or neither is.
Especially when you consider of the two "official" Citadel DCA models, one isn't even WYSIWYG and thus is "illegal" to use in game.

Considering that GW made Errata for C:SOB in the FAQ, changing DCA Power Swords to Power Weapons, there is no way you can argue in good faith that "DCA were only supposed to have Power Swords, not other Power weapons".

DevianID wrote:... so perhaps I am wrong, but if I am then you should be able to show me something that says you get to pick what kind of power weapon type goes on a model.

You're correct in that the rules don't specifically state that you can choose... But if you can't, what power weapon does an Assault Sergeant have?

I'm choosing to interpret the power weapon rules as meaning that you choose the weapon as you would any other gear, and the bit about referring to the model is just to remove confusion from someone claiming that their sword welding model actually has an axe... Because the other interpretation leads to lunacy.

Luide wrote:Jidmah argues that Modelling For Wargear is Modelling For Advantage. If official model doesn't have wargear option X modelled, then converting model to have that codex legal wargear is MFA.

Please do not misquote me. I claim that a power axe is not legal wargear for a model that does not come with axes.

Jidmah wrote:

Luide wrote:Jidmah argues that Modelling For Wargear is Modelling For Advantage. If official model doesn't have wargear option X modelled, then converting model to have that codex legal wargear is MFA.

Please do not misquote me. I claim that a power axe is not legal wargear for a model that does not come with axes.

And why are you drawing your arbitrary line there?

There is no Tyranid Prime model. What wargear am I restricted to?

Jidmah wrote:

Luide wrote:Jidmah argues that Modelling For Wargear is Modelling For Advantage. If official model doesn't have wargear option X modelled, then converting model to have that codex legal wargear is MFA.

Please do not misquote me. I claim that a power axe is not legal wargear for a model that does not come with axes.

And again, your opinion that has absolutely zero rules support. In fact it flies in the face of the 6th edition change to power weapons as whole.

Brother Ramses wrote:

Jidmah wrote:

Luide wrote:Jidmah argues that Modelling For Wargear is Modelling For Advantage. If official model doesn't have wargear option X modelled, then converting model to have that codex legal wargear is MFA.

Please do not misquote me. I claim that a power axe is not legal wargear for a model that does not come with axes.

And again, your opinion that has absolutely zero rules support. In fact it flies in the face of the 6th edition change to power weapons as whole.

Giving a model an axe that doesn't come with one is the exact same as modelling your model's eyes 3 inches above his head to abuse LOS.
Both unprohibited. Both dick moves.

I think we need GW to come out and explicitly state that modeling an axe or sword for the PW is now either okay or not okay since the ruleset as released does not give us clarification.

So until then, TOs and friendly games reach their own individual consensus.

WarOne wrote:I think we need GW to come out and explicitly state that modeling an axe or sword for the PW is now either okay or not okay since the ruleset as released does not give us clarification.

So until then, TOs and friendly games reach their own individual consensus.

The question is more, is conversion allowed?

Say GW releases a DCA with an axe or a Howling Banshee with an axe tomorrow

According to the rules this would be a legal model, with legal wargear.

Would it be illegal to modify a DCA/Banshee you have to use an axe? I doubt anyone would disagree.

Now, GW has not (yet) released such a model.

Yet, some think that converting to a possible and legal set of wargear is not allowed, just because the model doesn't exist yet.

Testify wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

Jidmah wrote:

Luide wrote:Jidmah argues that Modelling For Wargear is Modelling For Advantage. If official model doesn't have wargear option X modelled, then converting model to have that codex legal wargear is MFA.

Please do not misquote me. I claim that a power axe is not legal wargear for a model that does not come with axes.

And again, your opinion that has absolutely zero rules support. In fact it flies in the face of the 6th edition change to power weapons as whole.

Giving a model an axe that doesn't come with one is the exact same as modelling your model's eyes 3 inches above his head to abuse LOS.
Both unprohibited. Both dick moves.

Models don't come with axes, swords, or mauls that are specified by GW to be axes, swords, or mauls. They come with POWER WEAPONS, of which are determined by what has been modeled on the model. GW has determined that POWER WEAPONS are all equal and balanced in value now via points cost and associated positives and negatives of each power weapon type.

So no, modeling an axe on a model that does not come with one is exactly balanced and of equal value as modeling a sword, spear, or maul instead of said axe. That is not my opinion, that is the exact stance that GW has taken by making all power weapon choices equal in points value.

Brother Ramses wrote:
Models don't come with axes, swords, or mauls that are specified by GW to be axes, swords, or mauls.

Yes they do. Look:

They're holding swords. Giving them anything other than swords is giving them an advantage that they are not supposed to have.

Brother Ramses wrote:
They come with POWER WEAPONS, of which are determined by what has been modeled on the model. GW has determined that POWER WEAPONS are all equal and balanced in value now via points cost and associated positives and negatives of each power weapon type.

Really? Where do the words "equal" or "balanced" appear?
Notice that chaplains were FAQed to explicitly state that they come with a power maul as standard and they do not have the option to swap it for a sword or axe.

Brother Ramses wrote:
So no, modeling an axe on a model that does not come with one is exactly balanced and of equal value as modeling a sword, spear, or maul instead of said axe. That is not my opinion, that is the exact stance that GW has taken by making all power weapon choices equal in points value.

No it's not you've made it up. Feel free to quote where GW say it though.

Testify wrote:Notice that chaplains were FAQed to explicitly state that they come with a power maul as standard and they do not have the option to swap it for a sword or axe.

But Sisters of Battle were explicitly FAQ'ed to have power weapons rather than the previous power swords. How do you reconcile that?

tgjensen wrote:

Testify wrote:Notice that chaplains were FAQed to explicitly state that they come with a power maul as standard and they do not have the option to swap it for a sword or axe.

But Sisters of Battle were explicitly FAQ'ed to have power weapons rather than the previous power swords. How do you reconcile that?

I don't know. Didn't know sisters of battle had a codex to be honest with you.

Chaplains were probably FAQ'ed because their crozius was a special weapon which 'counted as a power weapon'.

Most codexes have a FAQ where every occurence of 'power sword' (specific type) is replaced with 'power weapon' (generic).

Testify wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

Jidmah wrote:

Luide wrote:Jidmah argues that Modelling For Wargear is Modelling For Advantage. If official model doesn't have wargear option X modelled, then converting model to have that codex legal wargear is MFA.

Please do not misquote me. I claim that a power axe is not legal wargear for a model that does not come with axes.

And again, your opinion that has absolutely zero rules support. In fact it flies in the face of the 6th edition change to power weapons as whole.

Giving a model an axe that doesn't come with one is the exact same as modelling your model's eyes 3 inches above his head to abuse LOS.
Both unprohibited. Both dick moves.

So what weapons can I give my tac squad sergeant? Just BP and Chainsword? No other choices in the box...

*edit* Also, is it a dick move to have 2 Daemon hammers in a unit of GKs? Only one comes in the box.

Slinky wrote:

Testify wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

Jidmah wrote:

Luide wrote:Jidmah argues that Modelling For Wargear is Modelling For Advantage. If official model doesn't have wargear option X modelled, then converting model to have that codex legal wargear is MFA.

Please do not misquote me. I claim that a power axe is not legal wargear for a model that does not come with axes.

And again, your opinion that has absolutely zero rules support. In fact it flies in the face of the 6th edition change to power weapons as whole.

Giving a model an axe that doesn't come with one is the exact same as modelling your model's eyes 3 inches above his head to abuse LOS.
Both unprohibited. Both dick moves.

So what weapons can I give my tac squad sergeant? Just BP and Chainsword? No other choices in the box...

Paint it blue and it's a power sword.

Testify wrote:

Slinky wrote:

Testify wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

Jidmah wrote:

Luide wrote:Jidmah argues that Modelling For Wargear is Modelling For Advantage. If official model doesn't have wargear option X modelled, then converting model to have that codex legal wargear is MFA.

Please do not misquote me. I claim that a power axe is not legal wargear for a model that does not come with axes.

And again, your opinion that has absolutely zero rules support. In fact it flies in the face of the 6th edition change to power weapons as whole.

Giving a model an axe that doesn't come with one is the exact same as modelling your model's eyes 3 inches above his head to abuse LOS.
Both unprohibited. Both dick moves.

So what weapons can I give my tac squad sergeant? Just BP and Chainsword? No other choices in the box...

Paint it blue and it's a power sword.

Lol...oh, you're not joking?

Seems to me that you, Jidmah, and like-minded individuals are failing to grasp this fundamental change in 6th edition. You're mindset is still grounded in 4th. GW has changed what it means for a model to be equipped with a Power Weapon. Previously, a Power Weapon was just that, a power weapon. It didn't matter if the model was holding a sword or an axe. If it was called a power weapon it did the same thing. All of that is different now. If a model's comes equipped with a Power Weapon, and the unit entry does not specify what the form of that weapon is, you as the owner get to decide that. I think it's a great rule that can change the dynamic/role of a squad. Magnetize a bunch different power weapon types and see what your squad can do with it.

Not that you should need too, but If you're still having trouble translate this rule mechanic into a flow chart and it becomes easily understandable.

-Yad

Yad wrote:
Lol...oh, you're not joking?

Seems to me that you, Jidmah, and like-minded individuals are failing to grasp this fundamental change in 6th edition. You're mindset is still grounded in 4th. GW has changed what it means for a model to be equipped with a Power Weapon. Previously, a Power Weapon was just that, a power weapon. It didn't matter if the model was holding a sword or an axe. If it was called a power weapon it did the same thing. All of that is different now. If a model's comes equipped with a Power Weapon, and the unit entry does not specify what the form of that weapon is, you as the owner get to decide that. I think it's a great rule that can change the dynamic/role of a squad. Magnetize a bunch different power weapon types and see what your squad can do with it.

Not that you should need too, but If you're still having trouble translate this rule mechanic into a flow chart and it becomes easily understandable.

-Yad

Please don't be condescending.
Until the new codexes come out we have no way of knowing what GW were thinking. Until then if you're willing to put up with being charged by Death Company with 5 strength 7 attacks each then, by all means, enjoy your games.
Games workshop did not say "Feel free to pick whichever type of power weapon you like". YOU have decided that is what they mean, and are acting as though that line is in the rules - it is not.

Testify wrote:

tgjensen wrote:

Testify wrote:Notice that chaplains were FAQed to explicitly state that they come with a power maul as standard and they do not have the option to swap it for a sword or axe.

But Sisters of Battle were explicitly FAQ'ed to have power weapons rather than the previous power swords. How do you reconcile that?

I don't know. Didn't know sisters of battle had a codex to be honest with you.

How about the FAQ for normal marines. Pg 2. Left hand collumn 7th point.

Var - Power Swords
In the bestiary and army list, replace all references to "power
sword" with "power weapon".

Right there it says that you have a power weapon not a sword. Now the rules tell us to look at the model iteself (NOT THE OFFICIAL MODEL) to see what kind of power weapon it has. Just because a kit comes with something doesn't mean that those are the only options you can use. Otherwise you can never run a combi-weapon on a tac sgt. The option is there so it is now MFA if I convert one up? Is this what we have sunk to? So I guess the whole BT upgrade box is worthless in that case. Converting is a part of the hobby, and using the options at your disposal is a part of the game.
Also Testify are you saying that I can't run a PF on my sgt that he must have a power sword or a chain sword? My codex would disagree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Testify wrote:

Yad wrote:
Lol...oh, you're not joking?

Seems to me that you, Jidmah, and like-minded individuals are failing to grasp this fundamental change in 6th edition. You're mindset is still grounded in 4th. GW has changed what it means for a model to be equipped with a Power Weapon. Previously, a Power Weapon was just that, a power weapon. It didn't matter if the model was holding a sword or an axe. If it was called a power weapon it did the same thing. All of that is different now. If a model's comes equipped with a Power Weapon, and the unit entry does not specify what the form of that weapon is, you as the owner get to decide that. I think it's a great rule that can change the dynamic/role of a squad. Magnetize a bunch different power weapon types and see what your squad can do with it.

Not that you should need too, but If you're still having trouble translate this rule mechanic into a flow chart and it becomes easily understandable.

-Yad

Please don't be condescending.
Until the new codexes come out we have no way of knowing what GW were thinking. Until then if you're willing to put up with being charged by Death Company with 5 strength 7 attacks each then, by all means, enjoy your games.
Games workshop did not say "Feel free to pick whichever type of power weapon you like". YOU have decided that is what they mean, and are acting as though that line is in the rules - it is not.

No they said look at the model. Does my marine in PA have a PA sized Power Axe? Yes then so be it. I have followed the rules and thus I have an ax. I and several others have shown you where it says to look at the model to see what kind of PW it is. Where is your support that says that you can only have a sword since that is the only available option in the box?

Testify wrote:Until the new codexes come out we have no way of knowing what GW were thinking.

Yes we do, because they spelled it out. If your model just has a generic power weapon, look at the model to determine what type. So, are you allowed to convert your model? GW has always encouraged conversions - just look at any hobby section of any rulebook or codex - so long as you stick to WYSIWYG. So what would be WYSIWYG? Would a power axe be OK? Yes, because that's a power weapon too. So is a power maul, and a power spear.

If you convert any of your models for whom you have purchased a power weapon from the codex to hold a sword, an axe, a maul, or a spear, then you are complying with WYSIWYG and in the clear.

Now look at the model again. What type of power weapon does it have?

Akroma06 wrote:

How about the FAQ for normal marines. Pg 2. Left hand collumn 7th point.

Var - Power Swords
In the bestiary and army list, replace all references to "power
sword" with "power weapon".

Right there it says that you have a power weapon not a sword. Now the rules tell us to look at the model iteself (NOT THE OFFICIAL MODEL) to see what kind of power weapon it has. Just because a kit comes with something doesn't mean that those are the only options you can use. Otherwise you can never run a combi-weapon on a tac sgt. The option is there so it is now MFA if I convert one up? Is this what we have sunk to? So I guess the whole BT upgrade box is worthless in that case. Converting is a part of the hobby, and using the options at your disposal is a part of the game.
Also Testify are you saying that I can't run a PF on my sgt that he must have a power sword or a chain sword? My codex would disagree.

No because you are explicitly allowed to take a power fist. I am not denying that what you are saying isn't explicitly disallowed by the rules, just suggesting that it is MFA, and like all these things is open to interpritation. No one would really mind what you stuck on a tactical squad sargent - the issue is things like assassins, flying deamons, howling banshees, et al.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

tgjensen wrote:

Testify wrote:Until the new codexes come out we have no way of knowing what GW were thinking.

Yes we do, because they spelled it out. If your model just has a generic power weapon, look at the model to determine what type. So, are you allowed to convert your model? GW has always encouraged conversions - just look at any hobby section of any rulebook or codex - so long as you stick to WYSIWYG. So what would be WYSIWYG? Would a power axe be OK? Yes, because that's a power weapon too. So is a power maul, and a power spear.

If you convert any of your models for whom you have purchased a power weapon from the codex to hold a sword, an axe, a maul, or a spear, then you are complying with WYSIWYG and in the clear.

Now look at the model again. What type of power weapon does it have?

Check line of sight through the model's eye view. I will stick my guy's head a few inches above his body in order to abuse this.
Same thing.
If your guys came with power swords and you've modelled them to something else, that's MFA.
I'm not judging you or anything, but if I was a guard player I'd probably be pretty vexed at facing S5 banshees, if I was a marine player I'd be pretty vexed by seeing them equipped with axes, etc.

Testify wrote:No one would really mind what you stuck on a tactical squad sargent - the issue is things like assassins, flying deamons, howling banshees, et al.

This is a valid point. It's where the new power weapon rules will interact with, shall we say, unusual units. Of course, the joke will be on you if you were to model power axes on your DCAs, just to have them ruled as Power Swords in a FAQ soon after.

htj wrote:

Testify wrote:No one would really mind what you stuck on a tactical squad sargent - the issue is things like assassins, flying deamons, howling banshees, et al.

This is a valid point. It's where the new power weapon rules will interact with, shall we say, unusual units. Of course, the joke will be on you if you were to model power axes on your DCAs, just to have them ruled as Power Swords in a FAQ soon after.

Anyone who did that would deserve it imo

Testify wrote:Check line of sight through the model's eye view. I will stick my guy's head a few inches above his body in order to abuse this.
Same thing.
If your guys came with power swords and you've modelled them to something else, that's MFA.
I'm not judging you or anything, but if I was a guard player I'd probably be pretty vexed at facing S5 banshees, if I was a marine player I'd be pretty vexed by seeing them equipped with axes, etc.

That would probably be legal, as far as I know. I just wouldn't want to play against it due to it being poor sportsmanship.

But the different power weapons are reasonably balanced. Power mauls aren't very good against marines, swords are not good against terminators or meganobz. Axes are, but they always strike last, making them a poor man's power fist. What you describe is no worse than normal list tailoring, which may be poor sportsmanship - I certainly hated it when my Marine opponent saddled up in a couple Land Raiders and Razorbacks against my take-all-comers Orks - but not disallowed.

Testify wrote:

htj wrote:

Testify wrote:No one would really mind what you stuck on a tactical squad sargent - the issue is things like assassins, flying deamons, howling banshees, et al.

This is a valid point. It's where the new power weapon rules will interact with, shall we say, unusual units. Of course, the joke will be on you if you were to model power axes on your DCAs, just to have them ruled as Power Swords in a FAQ soon after.

Anyone who did that would deserve it imo

Have to admit I'd find it hard not to smirk at them, at least.

That being said, I've plans to model up a Succubus with a Power Lance myself. I figure I'm onto a safe bet there, though, since the rulebook has a picture listed as something like 'Eldar Raider Power Spear.'

DevianID wrote:I am still on jidmah's side here.

Oh really!? A picture... no a mere drawing is enough from GW to tell us which version of a 'power weapon' is allowed. That's what he said. Please, if you would be so kind, tell us which pictures/drawings are ok. Do book covers count? Endorsed artwork posted on GW's website? What about user submitted artwork that GW posts on their site for a contest? Limited edition promotional materials sent to stores? What about pictures on GW's site showing conversions, mixing kits together? If they featured my sweet sweet DCA, which are a mix of Wood Elves, IG Cadian, GK falchions (and for sake of argument, Empire Axes), would all of a sudden axes be allowed?






Automatically Appended Next Post:

DevianID wrote:Instead we look to the model--not to army list, not to load-out.

Not quite. Since you agree with jidmah, when you say "the model" what you really mean is "official GW model, or some form of drawing or picture from GW." Again, if you are on jidmah's side you believe "the model" which is singular, applies to multiple GW models (plural) if they do exist, and probably, multiple GW drawings if they exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Luide wrote:I guess to break the arguments for more understandable form, we should use new definition
Modelling For Wargear:
MFW means converting model to have codex legal wargear options that are not present on the "official" model.
Examples: Converting model to have combi-flamer instead of combi-plasma. Converting model to have Power Axe instead of Power Sword.
Strict interpretation of this is that for multi-part plastic kits using weapons from other kits is MFW, examples include giving plasma gun or plasma cannon to tactical marine as they're not options for the official tactical marine kit.
There also seems to be interpretation that argues: "If there exists an official model X with wargear option Z, converting official model Y to have wargear option Z is not MFW".

For sake of argument, it is assumed that all MFW is done using proper sized weapons/other wargear and gives no other in-game advantage except by being WYSIWYG representation of a codex legal wargear option.

Now there are two sides to the DCA argument:
Joemama argues that Modelling For Wargear is distinct, separate concept from Modelling For Advantage. MFW is just representing wargear choices in WYSIWYG manner and MFA still follows the 5e accepted definition, where the in-game advantage gained by MFA is completely separate from the wargear modelled (but obviously might interact with the wargear).

Jidmah argues that Modelling For Wargear is Modelling For Advantage. If official model doesn't have wargear option X modelled, then converting model to have that codex legal wargear is MFA.

Note that arguing that MFW is MFA in some cases (Converting DCA to have power sword and axe) and not in other (converting certain Tyranid models to have Lash Whips) is IMO extremely hypocritical. In both cases, the modelling will give you in-game advantage of having specific wargear. Either both are MFA or neither is.
Especially when you consider of the two "official" Citadel DCA models, one isn't even WYSIWYG and thus is "illegal" to use in game.

Considering that GW made Errata for C:SOB in the FAQ, changing DCA Power Swords to Power Weapons, there is no way you can argue in good faith that "DCA were only supposed to have Power Swords, not other Power weapons".

Reasonable, thorough and well-writen. So it will probably be ignored by many.

Testify wrote:

Akroma06 wrote:

How about the FAQ for normal marines. Pg 2. Left hand collumn 7th point.

Var - Power Swords
In the bestiary and army list, replace all references to "power
sword" with "power weapon".

Right there it says that you have a power weapon not a sword. Now the rules tell us to look at the model iteself (NOT THE OFFICIAL MODEL) to see what kind of power weapon it has. Just because a kit comes with something doesn't mean that those are the only options you can use. Otherwise you can never run a combi-weapon on a tac sgt. The option is there so it is now MFA if I convert one up? Is this what we have sunk to? So I guess the whole BT upgrade box is worthless in that case. Converting is a part of the hobby, and using the options at your disposal is a part of the game.
Also Testify are you saying that I can't run a PF on my sgt that he must have a power sword or a chain sword? My codex would disagree.

No because you are explicitly allowed to take a power fist. I am not denying that what you are saying isn't explicitly disallowed by the rules, just suggesting that it is MFA, and like all these things is open to interpritation. No one would really mind what you stuck on a tactical squad sargent - the issue is things like assassins, flying deamons, howling banshees, et al.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Check line of sight through the model's eye view. I will stick my guy's head a few inches above his body in order to abuse this.
Same thing.
If your guys came with power swords and you've modelled them to something else, that's MFA.
I'm not judging you or anything, but if I was a guard player I'd probably be pretty vexed at facing S5 banshees, if I was a marine player I'd be pretty vexed by seeing them equipped with axes, etc.

Again so since a tac squad box doesn't come with a Power Ax, but my BT upgrade box does that means I can't use it? Please show me the rule where it says that you must use what is in the box for that model. BTW I do play C:SM, CSM, and BT and I wouldn't care if someone wants to run axes on banshees or DCA, I would either shoot them or take advantage of the fact that if they want the S+1 then they are Int 1 and I get to go first. As for the LOS issue what about the IG catachan sniper who is prone? Doesn't that affect LOS? BTW I would love to see how you get the head to float above his body.

Jidmah wrote:

Luide wrote:Jidmah argues that Modelling For Wargear is Modelling For Advantage. If official model doesn't have wargear option X modelled, then converting model to have that codex legal wargear is MFA.

Please do not misquote me. I claim that a power axe is not legal wargear for a model that does not come with axes.

Jidmah wrote an amazing summary of his position, I will re-post it, because it makes absurd unsupported-by-the-rules claims.

Jidmah wrote:As long as you find any model ever made by citadel with the weapon you desire, I'm fine with you counting even a bottle cap as that exact model. For me personally even a drawn picture from GW would suffice. If there is no model with any power/force weapon in existence, do whatever you want. You happy now?

I posted this like six time before.

Akroma06 wrote:
Again so since a tac squad box doesn't come with a Power Ax, but my BT upgrade box does that means I can't use it? Please show me the rule where it says that you must use what is in the box for that model. BTW I do play C:SM, CSM, and BT and I wouldn't care if someone wants to run axes on banshees or DCA, I would either shoot them or take advantage of the fact that if they want the S+1 then they are Int 1 and I get to go first. As for the LOS issue what about the IG catachan sniper who is prone? Doesn't that affect LOS? BTW I would love to see how you get the head to float above his body.

WAAC players never mind playing against other WAAC players.That's fine, play against whomever you like.
A space marine sargent is explicitly stated to be allowed a power fist, so that's a none issue. The issue is giving models weapons that they aren't explicitly allowed and could potentially upset balance/be interprited as MFA.
could easily stick a pin in a model's torso and stick his head on top of it. Nothing in the rules prohibiting it.
I could even greenstuff a neck around it, paint it up and say it's a chaos mutation.

Testify wrote:A space marine sargent is explicitly stated to be allowed a power fist, so that's a none issue. The issue is giving models weapons that they aren't explicitly allowed and could potentially upset balance/be interprited as MFA.

But in 6th edition some models are explicitly allowed a 'power weapon.' Which in 6th edition, the new edition with new rules, means a category that contains types of 'power weapons.' On the other hand, some models are only explicitly allowed a 'power sword.' They only can have that specific type of power weapon. It is a pretty obvious difference.

PS - Testify, why did several FAQs change codex entries from 'power sword' to 'power weapon'?

Oh, wow! This thread is hilarious.

Of course in the internet you can always find that one guy to defend any ludicrous position, but seeing that there are so many, makes me wonder how wide spread this kind of thinking actually is.

Reminds me of how few weeks ago when I was visiting the local game store there were these guys playing 40K. One had an army that had Chaos Marines painted in Space Wolf colours. I asked what they were, and he got oddly defensive. He assured that they were from Space Wolf box (they obviously weren't) and 100% legal. He seemed to be worried that he had been caught 'cheating' by playing using Space Wolf rules with Chaos minis or someting. I just had meant whether they were supposed to be 13th Company or had some other interesting backstory...


PS. My new Primaris Psyker with a force axe looks really cool. MFA for sure?

PPS. I have a GW book with a picture of an assassin wielding an axe by John Blanche. I wonder whether Jidmah now allows me to equip my assassins with axes?

Joe Mama wrote:

Testify wrote:A space marine sargent is explicitly stated to be allowed a power fist, so that's a none issue. The issue is giving models weapons that they aren't explicitly allowed and could potentially upset balance/be interprited as MFA.

But in 6th edition some models are explicitly allowed a 'power weapon.' Which in 6th edition, the new edition with new rules, means a category that contains types of 'power weapons.' On the other hand, some models are only explicitly allowed a 'power sword.' They only can have that specific type of power weapon. It is a pretty obvious difference.

PS - Testify, why did several FAQs change codex entries from 'power sword' to 'power weapon'?

Why did they also change several "power weapon" entries to "power maul"?
Ask the guys who wrote it.

Crimson wrote:
PS. My new Primaris Psyker with a force axe looks really cool. MFA for sure?

modelling!=MFA.
I could give a Bloodthirster a power weapon for (iirc) about 5 points. Boom, power maul. S10, suck it. THAT is modelling for advantage, no one really cares what your Primaris psker has, have some perspective.

Crimson wrote:PPS. I have a GW book with a picture of an assasin wielding an axe by John Blache. I wonder whether Jidmah now allows me to equip my assassins with axes?

Dude! You're my hero! Can I buy this book off of you, so that I will have proof that axes are legal on DCAs? It was a DCA right, not just a regular assassin? Oh wait, you said assasin, not assassin, maybe that's different and it won't work. Oh noes!

Why would you want a DCA with power axe? He'd die before getting to use it.

Testify wrote:Why would you want a DCA with power axe? He'd die before getting to use it.

The why is outside the scope of this thread. It really and truly is irrelevant to the legality of the wargear option.


But one possible answer is that then they'd have a chance against TH/SS dudes. If they ever make it to them. In 6th edition, DCA are going to die before they get into assault anyway....

Testify wrote:Why would you want a DCA with power axe? He'd die before getting to use it.

Because the crusaders would suck up most of the hits, leaving the assassins to strike with their weapons.

Testify wrote:

Crimson wrote:
PS. My new Primaris Psyker with a force axe looks really cool. MFA for sure?

modelling!=MFA.
I could give a Bloodthirster a power weapon for (iirc) about 5 points. Boom, power maul. S10, suck it. THAT is modelling for advantage, no one really cares what your Primaris psker has, have some perspective.

AFAIK, GW does not broduce Primaris Psykers with force axes, only with staves. It is the exact same thing than the Death Cult Assassins.
I have no idea what the rules say Bloodthirster has. If they say 'power weapon', then indeed he could have a power maul.

Crimson wrote:

Testify wrote:

Crimson wrote:
PS. My new Primaris Psyker with a force axe looks really cool. MFA for sure?

modelling!=MFA.
I could give a Bloodthirster a power weapon for (iirc) about 5 points. Boom, power maul. S10, suck it. THAT is modelling for advantage, no one really cares what your Primaris psker has, have some perspective.

AFAIK, GW does not broduce Primaris Psykers with force axes, only with staves. It is the exact same thing than the Death Cult Assassins.
I have no idea what the rules say Bloodthirster has. If they say 'power weapon', then indeed he could have a power maul.

Can't speak for CSM, but in Daemons it's an 'Axe of Khorne.' I cannot remember whether it is described as a power weapon, but it is explicitely an axe. If it is also a power weapon, then it's going to be a power axe. Meaning +2S... on an MC, so striking at base Initiative, not 1... Oh my.

Joe Mama wrote:
Dude! You're my hero! Can I buy this book off of you, so that I will have proof that axes are legal on DCAs? It was a DCA right, not just a regular assassin? Oh wait, you said assasin, not assassin, maybe that's different and it won't work. Oh noes!

(Typo corrected, damn it!)

It is in The Inquisitor Sketchbook by John Blanche, as well as in the Assassins section of the Inquisitor rulebook, and those are specificly Death Cult Assassins.

I hope I can next find a picture of a a Primaris Psyker with an axe, lest I need to scrap my conversion!

this has raged on for 18+ pages.....

ok, can someone post an all-inclusive list of the power weapons available to a tactical marine sergeant (because the same RULES will apply to everything else)....

his rules say "power weapon" and the rulebook says to look at the model.

that should quite easily suggest i can use any of the 3......


i see no RULES issue here, what is the argument exactly?



as for modelling for advantage..... by virtue of upgrading your characters you have done that already. by virtue of moving/shooting/using psychic powers/assaulting you have taken advantage of the rules for your own benefit. personally i have no issue with death cult assassins striking at I1 anyway

Best thread ever.

Crimson wrote:It is in The Inquisitor Sketchbook by John Blanche, as well as in the Assassins section of the Inquisitor rulebook, and those are specificly Death Cult Assassins.

OH YEAH. AXE WIELDING DCA ARE NOW LEGAL. *raises the roof* *does the worm, then the MC Hammer dance, throws out back*.

mrspadge wrote:this has raged on for 18+ pages.....

ok, can someone post an all-inclusive list of the power weapons available to a tactical marine sergeant (because the same RULES will apply to everything else)....

his rules say "power weapon" and the rulebook says to look at the model.

that should quite easily suggest i can use any of the 3......


i see no RULES issue here, what is the argument exactly?



as for modelling for advantage..... by virtue of upgrading your characters you have done that already. by virtue of moving/shooting/using psychic powers/assaulting you have taken advantage of the rules for your own benefit. personally i have no issue with death cult assassins striking at I1 anyway

Some people are calling it MFA or moddelling for advantage. Keep in mind that it must be wysiwyg for you to have it. The point is if I have a Death Cult Assassin with power sword (or similar) in one hand and an axe in the other. This would let you have tactical flexibility depending on what they charge since you get the extra attack anyway. Personally if someone wants to to go to that much trouble then so be it. Assault in this edition will struggle anyway. Now from a pure rules perspective there is nothing that prohibits me from doing this. I don't play GK or SoB so I don't really have a dog in this fight. All the rules say is that if a model has a PW then look and see what it has and that is what weapon you use.