Vindicare-Obsession wrote:Not sure who your siding with rigeld, but it dosent really matter. What this is appearing to me, is that Nos is saying that by RAW (or to be more precise, because it isint written) Conversions are illegal and that means you are stuck with the components GW gives you and left to no creativity. We are using argumentum ad absurdum to show that not everything is listed as a rule, especially when it takes place in the HOBBY part of the game. This brings us to point 2, since there is no rule for converison or even building models, do we play with unassebled miniatures? Or do we actually think and fall back on either common sense or the hobby section.

I'm not siding with either side in the debate, though overall I think you can model whichever weapon you want.
I was just commenting on the fallacy that everyone who argues a point in YMDC must play that way and would therefore be a poor opponent.
It gets said way too often and I both resent that implication and dislike the attitude that generates it.

insaniak wrote:And that's where you're going to continue to get disagreement, because to those arguing for being able to swap weapons, all that the rule about looking at the model is doing is telling you that where the weapon it's not defined in the rules, you just fall back on WYSIWYG.

Because the alternative, that we're only supposed to use the weapons that come in the same package as the model regardless of what options the model may have, it's just too ridiculous to take seriously.

This. The idea that you cannot swap weapons is just absurd. It is not going to be taken seriously. The rule book has instructions on how to do this, and converting has been part of the game from the beginning.

rigeld2 wrote:I was just commenting on the fallacy that everyone who argues a point in YMDC must play that way and would therefore be a poor opponent.
It gets said way too often and I both resent that implication and dislike the attitude that generates it.

Yeah, RAW is very different from HIWPI.

The content of the box dont limit your options. If it was true, them we should get lascannons and multimeltas in a tac marine box, or melta guns and flamers in a devastators box. Hell, we dont get power fists in a tac marine box!!!!

If someone come with the "but the codex say it is possible", them the BRB says all Power Weapons are what they looks like, and the all the codices use the word "power weapon". Even the Erratas have worked it, making clear where a power weapon means a power sword (Necron Phaseswords), or where a "power sword" should be changed to "power weapon".

One funny thing: in 4th, necron phasewords ignored each save (including invulnerable), in 5th they only ignored armor saves, in 6th they only ignore armors saves of 3+ or worse... Necron technology is getting worse over the ages?

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote: the one with a power weapon. It may have two listed as wargear, but there is no requirement for both to be shown

Wow....
Ahem incoming

So since nothing has to be modeled, I just wont glue them onto the model. Now I can't look to see what power weapon they have so I get schrodingers power weapon that will change every turn. It either has to be moedled, or it cna be converted, stop changing your argument.

Yet another straw man. Shock.

You assemble the model, stock. There is no WYSIWYG requirement within the brb so nothing requires that the citadel miniature for a dca exactly matches the codex entry in terms of war gear. Just that it IS the CM that represents a dca. Stop misrepresenting others arguments

IIRC, there's also no requirement (in the Rules section) that the Citadel Miniature that you use to represent a unit match the citadel miniature originally designed for that purpose.

So you could use Space Marines as DCA, as long as they are unmodified, unpainted and unassembled.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You assemble the model, stock. There is no WYSIWYG requirement within the brb so nothing requires that the citadel miniature for a dca exactly matches the codex entry in terms of war gear. Just that it IS the CM that represents a dca. Stop misrepresenting others arguments

Please, can you finally tell us how you know how the models are supposed to be assembled and what kind of rules support you have for this.

I've been following this thread for all 11 pages (probably one of the more circular reads) and I just have one question for Nos.

Where, in the rules, does it define what a citadel miniature is?

I've read the first 8 pages of this and then stopped. But I'd like to make a comment about MFA that no one seems to have pointed out yet.

What is the difference between modelling for advantage and modelling for options? The definition of MFA as building your models in a way that alters their effect on the game is too broad and this is why ; When I build a devastator squad, I choose from the available options in my codex in order to give my models an advantage in the game. If I want the advantage of S9 AP2, I take a lascannon. If I want the advantage of an AP2 blast template, I'll take a plasma cannon. Likewise for meltaguns, plasmaguns and flamers on a tactical squad. Even when the bits are not provided with the model kit, this is modelling for options and it's perfectly legal.

What I am not allowed to do is, for example put my close combat killer on a huge base so that I can get into B2B with more models. Or make my Ork Battlewagon bigger so my KFF bubble is bigger. Or *sigh* tilt my storm raven downward to reduce my assault cannon's blind spot. Of course, there are other things that would be illegally MFA too.

Why is the DCA power weapon suddenly an issue? It's because of in the new edition of the rules, power weapons suddenly have options where they didn't before. If your codex says the model has a power weapon, then you have the OPTION to choose which flavor of power weapon. You must model it appropriately. This is NOT modelling for an advantage any more than modelling a tac marine with a meltagun over a plasmagun is modelling for advantage. Each type of weapon is good at one thing and bad at others.

Grugknuckle wrote:
Why is the DCA power weapon suddenly an issue? It's because of in the new edition of the rules, power weapons suddenly have options where they didn't before. If your codex says the model has a power weapon, then you have the OPTION to choose which flavor of power weapon.

It doesn't say that. It Implies that based upon an unspoken gaming convention that conversions are allowed and that it gives you a choice.

What we are finding is some weapons 'look' a specific way due to the design choices of GW and they then choose to limit that it is a specific kind of power weapon. Since we have no way of know who GW intended to get the ability to CHOOSE and who GW intended to get handed a Specific weapon, the interpretation is 'every power weapon is any power weapon until you get NERFed.'

You can take that position, but it is far from an explicit permission in the rules of granting players a choice the same way as choosing a power fist or a lascannon is. Saying the implied gaping hole in the rules is clear as day really isn't fair... It works due to a general consensus on HIWPI not because the rulebook says "you may choose any of the following types of power weapons when you are equipped with a power weapon." because the rulebook doesn't actually say that.

"The definition of MFA as building your models in a way that alters their effect on the game"

That isnt the definition of MFA. You missed the part that is about the negative effects

" then you have the OPTION to choose which flavor of power weapon"

Nothing in the rules actually says this, however. It is a common misreading, and some are taking there to be implicit permission, but there isnt actually any such written rule. The rule says the model defines it, not that you have permission to model the model anyway you like it. People are just assuming this.

This is a serious case of which came first, the chicken or the egg.

A generic power weapon's type/rules are dictated by what is on the model. However it is fact that this isn't an absolute statement.

If I want to have a wolf lord with a power lance, I build the model and thus, the power weapon type/rules are determined by what I chose to put on the model, not what was on the model.

So the continued insistence that DCA must have power swords is making a false statement as you are not dealing with an absolute statement when it comes to power weapons being determined by what is on the model. DCA can be modeled so that what is modeled dictates power weapon type/rules as it still fulfills the rule that the you look to the model to determine the power weapon type/rule.

The direction that this topic took in regard to the legality of conversions and assembly of models is just absurd. Conversions and assembly are entwined within the rules as much as any other aspect of the rules such as shooting, assaulting, movement, or whatever.

nkelsch wrote: Since we have no way of know who GW intended to get the ability to CHOOSE and who GW intended to get handed a Specific weapon, the interpretation is 'every power weapon is any power weapon until you get NERFed.'

We do actually have a way to know. In the FAQ's, some codecies have the option "power sword" changed to "power weapon" (e.g. Blood Angels), while other codecies have "power weapon" changed to "power sword" or "power axe" or what have you.

You can take that position,

...and I do...

but it is far from an explicit permission in the rules of granting players a choice the same way as choosing a power fist or a lascannon is. Saying the implied gaping hole in the rules is clear as day really isn't fair... It works due to a general consensus on HIWPI not because the rulebook says "you may choose any of the following types of power weapons when you are equipped with a power weapon." because the rulebook doesn't actually say that.

This is a fair point. It is not explicit. It is a gaping hole - one of many since the cross-over I might add. And I think for now, general consensus should be enough until we get a FAQ. After all, it IS the new rules that caused this issue and those rules are barely a month old. I can't say for certain that GW will ever get around to fixing it. I hope they do. But in the meantime, I'll hope that we can all avoid the temptation to take the "permissive rule set" philosophy too far while the rules are so new. And by that I mean simply that "gaping holes in the new rules" are expected. We need to be reasonable for a while until the rules authorities have time to fix them with an FAQ. So by all means, lets all go out an intentionally look for places where the exact wording of the 5th ed codecies and 6th ed rules suddenly make broken rules. But when it is clear what RAI is / was, let us please try to keep some it in mind when making a ruling UNTIL we get a FAQ.

So... Where in the rulebook/codex/errata does it say that DCA can only use a power sword? There has been two known cases of power weapon wording:

1) To grant player the option to choose from the 4 types of power weapon: They changed codex entries that say "power sword" to "power weapon".

2) To specify that certain weapon is indeed 1 of the 4 types of power weapon and player can never choose between them: Hyperphase sword.

So is it unacceptable to assume that since DCA's entry has not been changed to say "power sword" that they can choose from the 4 types of power weapon as a SM sarge could, as a hekatrix could, as any unit who still have the "switch x for power weapon" could.

I know GW is inconsistent(see: Harlequins, Hyperphase sword, etc), but if they had meant that a certain unit could only access one of the four options, I'm sure they'd specify in some way or the other. As there isn't any official statement so far, then we should treat any entry that says "Power weapon" to mean the same across the board.

If in the future, GW does errata that DCA are sword-assassins, they are allergic to anything that isn't sword-shaped... Then, you're free to say "I TOLD YOU SO!!!", but until then...

nosferatu1001 wrote:"The definition of MFA as building your models in a way that alters their effect on the game"

That isnt the definition of MFA. You missed the part that is about the negative effects

" then you have the OPTION to choose which flavor of power weapon"

Nothing in the rules actually says this, however. It is a common misreading, and some are taking there to be implicit permission, but there isnt actually any such written rule. The rule says the model defines it, not that you have permission to model the model anyway you like it. People are just assuming this.

You have written that a hundred times now. I understand that that is your position, but I'm sorry but I disagree with you. Nothing in the rules says that this is not the way to do it either and actually, we must have SOME way of deciding which power weapon is which. To me, look at the model means look at the model as it is sitting on the table - assembled. While this is not explicit permission to model the power weapon as you like, it IS implicit permission. It is implied.

Conversions are allowed and in fact required in some cases. The rulebook doesn't explicitly give you permission to do this, but that permission is implicit. Modelling your power weapons is no different. Now you will type permissive rule set at me and it will still not change my position. Covnversions have been part of the game since the late 80's, and yet no incarnation of the rules has ever given you explicit permission to convert (or assemble) models. Let's get past this. You cannot take this permissive rules philosophy this far.

My suggestion convert you'r awesome looking axessassins then use them as if they have swords unless the opponent agrees otherwise.

Can anyone tell me what constitutes a power weapon?

Does it have to be painted glowing blue? Does it have the 'power line' on it? Because so many CItadel Miniatures do not conform to any of it.

If I paint my swords blue, are they now power weapons?
If green, force weapons?
If silver, a normal CCW?

EDIT:
Oh wait, if I actually paint them the way I want, I'll have modified my citadel miniature for an advantage.

Shandara wrote:Can anyone tell me what constitutes a power weapon?

Does it have to be painted glowing blue? Does it have the 'power line' on it? Because so many CItadel Miniatures do not conform to any of it.

If I paint my swords blue, are they now power weapons?
If green, force weapons?
If silver, a normal CCW?

The rules do not give you permission to paint your models. You cannot do anything with your models unless the rules give you permission.

(just kidding bro.)

My point is that, for the game to work, you have to have general consensus between the 2 players on a lot of things.

The color/shape of power weapons for instance.

And, more importantly, what a 'model' is.

Is the model referred to in the rules (have to use Citadel Miniatures models) a:
* unmodified, unpainted, unassembled (apart from being glued to its base) as it comes from GW?
* The actual model you hold in your hand as you put it down on the table, which may be painted or not, assembled or not, converted or not as chance has it.

This can't be decided by this forum, since the rule only say 'model', which can be interpreted to either statement above.

If you accept the 2nd interpretation, then the rule for power weapons can only mean the same: look at the model you have in your hand/you see on table. If that actual model in your hand has an axe, it's a power axe.

Seriously though, if your codex entry simply says 'power weapon' then why can't you use your model with whatever type of power weapon that you want from among the BRB 'base' power weapons? Tactical marines devestator squads, and dreadnoughts (among others) do not come with all of the available options listed in their wargear, yet it is not modeling for advantage to buy and use their available wargear. It is incredibly uncommon for units to come with combi-anything, yet they are available for purchase as wargear. As long as you specify what you are using before battle (or before a tournament or whatever), why should it be any different?

Since MFA isn't a rule. The only "real rule" as defined in the rules" section of the BRB that deals with models is "the citadel miniatures used to play a game of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow." In the 5th ed book there used to be a section about WYSIWYG and Counts-as, but I can't find any equivalent anymore.

Therefore we can only assume, well, nothing. That doesn't tell us enough to form an opinion about whether models can be converted, bit swapped, assembly, painting, etc. The assembly instructions don't even include descriptions of what things are. My battlewagon instructions don't include any text to tell me what to use for a kannon, big shoota, grabbin' klaw, ram, etc. So are those options not allowed?

This stuff isn't covered in the rules and citadel assembly instructions aren't rules anyways. This stuff just isn't covered, but you know what, most people can figure it out. There are a lot of things they don't cover. This is where you just have to agree with your opponent (which, the rules don't actually give you permission to do either) on how to play or ask the tournament organizer. Almost all tournaments publish some sort of guideline on what is acceptable and what isn't or it just comes down to the judge's discretion. See the bottom of page 1, top of page 2 for an example
http://www.novaopen.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/NOVA-FAQ-v6th.1-DRAFT.pdf

Having said that, I'd think that a tournament that said you can't ever take a blood angel librarian with an infernus pistols because there isn't a stock model with it, then that tournament is free do do so, but risks alienating most players.

I think that GW had faith in us to put pg60 of the BRB (stating that a generic power weapon can be a different type), page 96 of the sisters' WD codex (wargear: two power weapons), and page 322 of the BRB (deailng with conversions) as implied permission to model your power 'weapons' as swords, axes, etc. This is further reinforced by the sisters' FAQ which changes all references from power sword to power weapon.

Why bother with all this anecdotal suggestion if they wanted us to take a purely pedantic view of the rule?.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You assemble the model, stock. There is no WYSIWYG requirement within the brb so nothing requires that the citadel miniature for a dca exactly matches the codex entry in terms of war gear. Just that it IS the CM that represents a dca. Stop misrepresenting others arguments

Which brings us right back that that question that you still haven't answered, about how to determine which power weapons they have when they don't actually have them...

You determine what type of power weapon the weapon is based on what your opponent's list tells you the weapon is at the beginning of the game. Playing with friends? Either have a list or just trust each other to tell the truth. Playing at a LGS or tournament? Have a list, and request that your opponent does the same.

Warhammer etiquette - super simply stuff.

11 pages debating on whether or not its legal to convert/modify/alter/whatever a model and use it in a game....a game, by the way, that is made by a company that, since its inception, has stressed converting/modifying/altering models to play in their game. A company that loves their customers converting their stock models so much, they give out great big f'n swords to the best converters and scratch modelers. A company that has released official game rules for models that were never released,were never going to be released, and GW's official stance was, "Hey, this is your opportunity to try out some of your modelling skills!"

So, knowing this about Games Workshop,how can anybody argue with any real conviction that the rules dictate that you can never field a model that isn't stock, and to do so is MFA?