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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are free to model whatever you want.

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

Why?

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

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

pretre wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

whitedragon wrote:

pretre wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/boggle

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

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

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

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

pretre wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other than the rules you mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case closed.

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

Jidmah wrote:

pretre wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jidmah wrote:

pretre wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You said in English what I said in goon.

A Town Called Malus wrote:No, they're saying that sticking a Vindicator Cannon on a turret is modelling for advantage because it changes the function of the Vindicator Cannon from being a shoot forwards within a 45 degree arc to shoot 360 degrees, something which is not allowed in the rules whereas choosing to give a model described as equipped with a Power Weapon a Power Axe is.

I was meaning turrets in general. Not turret mounting guns that are not turret mountable.

Yeah, Vindicators are hull mounted. So no go on the turret.

I am saddened that my Chaplin in terminator armor with his axe makes it forced to be a maul, but oh well, new vanilla codex on the horizon!

The power lance's seem fun, great for a white scars army.

So becuase GW only makes a model with 2 power swords, I can't make my own armed with whatever 2 power weapons I want? I strongly disagree. Creating your own models and modifying them within the rules is still part of this hobby.

Therion wrote:

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

And if someone cuts off one of the swords and puts an axe there instead it now has an axe and a sword.

Modelling for advantage in this sense is not cheating, it is making use of the new rules available to the unit.

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

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

It says "look at the model." It does not say "look at the official model." GW isn't shy about telling people to use what's in the box (see 5th edition basing).

Any model made during 3rd-5th edition had axes, mauls, and swords more or less at random. You're basically arguing that DCAs can't do what any other unit can (take the power weapons they want) because of an aesthetic choice made by GW in 2000.

andrewm9 wrote:So becuase GW only makes a model with 2 power swords, I can't make my own armed with whatever 2 power weapons I want? I strongly disagree. Creating your own models and modifying them within the rules is still part of this hobby.

You can arm them with 2 of the same power weapon. The issue is using a sword and an axe on the model for example.

Therion wrote:Basically, the guideline is GW's official models if they exist. If they don't exist you're free to use more imagination.

Wrong. GW tells us what legal wargear options are. We then model our units with those legal war gear options. A GK henchman Crusader has a power weapon as part of its wargear. Under the rules that can be a sword, a maul, an axe, a halberd or a stave. Do you disagree?

kirsanth wrote:

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

Other than the rules you mean?

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

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

Maybe you check on what a big gun is before you call people being wrong?

Hint: Killkannons and Big shootaz aren't.

Oh, and please quote the rule which prevents me doing that.

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

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

Modeling for advantage means changing the model for an in-game advantage.

Replacing a model clearly using a sword (even in its fluff) with an axe is changing the model to gain an advantage. GW is not telling you to use whichever weapon you want. GW is telling you to look at the model to figure out which weapon it has. It clearly has a sword.

IdentifyZero wrote:

andrewm9 wrote:So becuase GW only makes a model with 2 power swords, I can't make my own armed with whatever 2 power weapons I want? I strongly disagree. Creating your own models and modifying them within the rules is still part of this hobby.

You can arm them with 2 of the same power weapon. The issue is using a sword and an axe on the model for example.

You just made a house rule and tried to pass it off as an official rule.

andrewm9 wrote:So becuase GW only makes a model with 2 power swords, I can't make my own armed with whatever 2 power weapons I want? I strongly disagree. Creating your own models and modifying them within the rules is still part of this hobby.

I strongly agree with Andrew's strong disagreement.

Just because the "official" model has a sword (btw, note that one of those models only has one sword, not 2, so isn't WYSIWYG anyway), there is nothing preventing you from modelling a DCA with a sword and an axe.

This is clearly not cheating as the model would then have a sword and an axe, and the rules tell us to look at the model to determine PW type.

IdentifyZero wrote:

andrewm9 wrote:So becuase GW only makes a model with 2 power swords, I can't make my own armed with whatever 2 power weapons I want? I strongly disagree. Creating your own models and modifying them within the rules is still part of this hobby.

You can arm them with 2 of the same power weapon. The issue is using a sword and an axe on the model for example.

Where do the rules explicitly state that a model armed with two power weapons must take two of the same type?

I don't want to hear any garbage about "modelling for advantage", I want to hear the passage, copied word for word out of the rulebook, which explicitly forbids a model being armed with two different power weapons.

Polonius wrote:

Jidmah wrote:

pretre wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your tactical sergeant example doesn't fit in with the DCA having a sword/axe. He is a unique upgrade unit that can pay for any wargear options listed in his entry and can in theory, have avariety of combinations of weapons without issue. Even most of the old sergeants going back to 2nd edition, only have 1 arm sculpted on for the reason of versatility.

I think the issue is, DCA/banshees and other units will now see an increase in MFA even if it seems like GW didn't intend people to be throwing axes, lances and mauls on them. Regardless, I have ZERO issue with changing both weapons, it's having two different weapons on a normal unit (squad member) with no penalty etc.. lol

Jidmah wrote:Replacing a model clearly using a sword (even in its fluff) with an axe is changing the model to gain an advantage. GW is not telling you to use whichever weapon you want. GW is telling you to look at the model to figure out which weapon it has. It clearly has a sword.

I converted my DCA from wyches. They do not clearly have swords. They clearly have a variety of weapons which I now need to classify as the different types of PW. That's perfectly legal.

Slinky wrote:

andrewm9 wrote:So becuase GW only makes a model with 2 power swords, I can't make my own armed with whatever 2 power weapons I want? I strongly disagree. Creating your own models and modifying them within the rules is still part of this hobby.

I strongly agree with Andrew's strong disagreement.

Just because the "official" model has a sword (btw, note that one of those models only has one sword, not 2, so isn't WYSIWYG anyway), there is nothing preventing you from modelling a DCA with a sword and an axe.

This is clearly not cheating as the model would then have a sword and an axe, and the rules tell us to look at the model to determine PW type.

The sculpts are also from several editions ago and were at one point not taken in squads....

IdentifyZero wrote:even if it seems like GW didn't intend people to be throwing axes, lances and mauls on them.

Why then did they make that an option? The rules seem to disagree with you.

pretre wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Replacing a model clearly using a sword (even in its fluff) with an axe is changing the model to gain an advantage. GW is not telling you to use whichever weapon you want. GW is telling you to look at the model to figure out which weapon it has. It clearly has a sword.

I converted my DCA from wyches. They do not clearly have swords. They clearly have a variety of weapons which I now need to classify as the different types of PW. That's perfectly legal.

Only if they are reasonably identifiable to your opponent. Most people are not going to feel a chain, whip or knife represents a power axe, sword, maul or lance.

It does not say "look at the official model." GW isn't shy about telling people to use what's in the box (see 5th edition basing).

Are you serious? You're saying I can make any unit or vehicle look like anything I like? So if I don't like my Monolith being so god damn big, I can make a custom Monolith that is smaller than a Necron Warrior for example? If I have a problem with my Land Raider Redeemer, I can glue the sponsons into the nose of the Land Raider so it's a easier to target with them? What else can I do? Am I allowed to make all my assault models crouching or lying down so that if there's terrain that normally blocks line of sight up to the waist of models, my models can't be seen at all? Am I allowed to attach 'extra armor' to the side of my Rhinos that blocks line of sight to my entire army behind them?

In short, you're saying that you're allowed (even encouraged to) model for your advantage in any way you like. Only my imagination is the limit, right?

Wrong. GW tells us what legal wargear options are.

We're still talking about DCA, right? You don't have any options. You have two power weapons. The rule says what to do when you have power weapons with no special rules. They tell you to look at the model. I've already linked the picture. If your model looks different and has an advantage because of it, you've modeled for advantage. Is this really so hard to understand?

Jidmah wrote:[Modeling for advantage means changing the model for an in-game advantage.

Replacing a model clearly using a sword (even in its fluff) with an axe is changing the model to gain an advantage. GW is not telling you to use whichever weapon you want. GW is telling you to look at the model to figure out which weapon it has. It clearly has a sword.

Sure, that model does.

If you cut off a sword and add an ax, it now has a sword and an ax.

Which is a legal option for a model with a "power weapon."

I'm not sure why this is different than selecting any other wargear.

I mean, any unit in the game that could take "power weapons" now has options they didn't before. Why deny that option to one unit?

Jidmah wrote:Oh, and please quote the rule which prevents me doing that.

Now I get what you meant, I did misread you. You mean adding weapons the vehicle can take onto the turret another weapon can take?

I do not see why that would even relate to the discussion.

@Therion: The difference is that we are swapping out legal wargear choices. You are talking about changing the LOS profile, etc for advantage. There's a big difference.

Therion wrote:You have two power weapons. The rule says what to do when you have power weapons with no special rules. They tell you to look at the model. I've already linked the picture.

That is a picture of a model. Not the model in question, which the rules tell you to use.

Polonius wrote:

Jidmah wrote:[Modeling for advantage means changing the model for an in-game advantage.

Replacing a model clearly using a sword (even in its fluff) with an axe is changing the model to gain an advantage. GW is not telling you to use whichever weapon you want. GW is telling you to look at the model to figure out which weapon it has. It clearly has a sword.

Sure, that model does.

If you cut off a sword and add an ax, it now has a sword and an ax.

Which is a legal option for a model with a "power weapon."

I'm not sure why this is different than selecting any other wargear.

I mean, any unit in the game that could take "power weapons" now has options they didn't before. Why deny that option to one unit?

Exactly. I could take the captain from AOBR and change his sword to be an axe (another power weapon). Completely legal and largely the same thing.

People are confusing a rule (the new PW rules) they don't like with MFA.

pretre wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Replacing a model clearly using a sword (even in its fluff) with an axe is changing the model to gain an advantage. GW is not telling you to use whichever weapon you want. GW is telling you to look at the model to figure out which weapon it has. It clearly has a sword.

I converted my DCA from wyches. They do not clearly have swords. They clearly have a variety of weapons which I now need to classify as the different types of PW. That's perfectly legal.

Just like my orks don't get meltas from being converted from marines, your death cult assasins don't get power axes from being converted from witches.

pretre wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:even if it seems like GW didn't intend people to be throwing axes, lances and mauls on them.

Why then did they make that an option? The rules seem to disagree with you.

Please quote the exact rule allowing you to freely choose which weapons you can equip. And please don't quote the one telling you to look at models which are made by citadel. Because "model" is defined in the very first sentence of the rules, excluding anything custom-built.

The difference is that we are swapping out legal wargear choices. You are talking about changing the LOS profile, etc for advantage. There's a big difference.

Why is there a difference? I'm modelling for advantage in any of the scenarios I listed. You know what modelling means, and you know what advantage means. I've already explained myself numerous times.

Jidmah wrote:Please quote the exact rule allowing you to freely choose which weapons you can equip.

Each codex is rather explicit about that.

Jidmah wrote:

pretre wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Replacing a model clearly using a sword (even in its fluff) with an axe is changing the model to gain an advantage. GW is not telling you to use whichever weapon you want. GW is telling you to look at the model to figure out which weapon it has. It clearly has a sword.

I converted my DCA from wyches. They do not clearly have swords. They clearly have a variety of weapons which I now need to classify as the different types of PW. That's perfectly legal.

Just like my orks don't get meltas from being converted from marines, your death cult assasins don't get power axes from being converted from witches.

That's because meltas aren't a legal choice for orks. Axes are for DCA.

pretre wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:even if it seems like GW didn't intend people to be throwing axes, lances and mauls on them.

Why then did they make that an option? The rules seem to disagree with you.

Please quote the exact rule allowing you to freely choose which weapons you can equip. And please don't quote the one telling you to look at models which are made by citadel. Because "model" is defined in the very first sentence of the rules, excluding anything custom-built.

That is the one. I used legal citadel models to make my wyches in 5th ed.


Why are they suddenly illegal when the rules say to look at their weapons and determine what kind of PW they have? The rules don't say 'If your model doesn't have the same kind of weapon as the stock model, you need to switch it back'.

Do you guys claim MFA when ork player's paint their vehicles red? Or only the ones without red images on the website?

editing to add:
I have NEVER seen a red paint pot, of any variety, come with a vehicle.

Therion wrote:

The difference is that we are swapping out legal wargear choices. You are talking about changing the LOS profile, etc for advantage. There's a big difference.

Why is there a difference? I'm modelling for advantage in any of the scenarios I listed. You know what modelling means, and you know what advantage means. I've already explained myself numerous times.

Because me choosing legitimate wargear choices from my codex and modelling them is not MFA.

I am allowed 2 PW for any DCA model. The main rulebook says that PW come in multiple varieties based on the actual model. I am free to choose from those.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jidmah wrote: Because "model" is defined in the very first sentence of the rules, excluding anything custom-built.

Where?

The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer
40,000 are referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow. Models
represent a huge varietyof troops, from noble SpaceMarines
and brutal Orks to Warp-spawnedDaemons.


That's the first sentence of the rules and it doesn't exclude conversions from citadel miniatures.

kirsanth wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Please quote the exact rule allowing you to freely choose which weapons you can equip.

Each codex is rather explicit about that.

So is the rule which states you use whichever the model is armed with.

Stating again though, since some of the thicker headed people keep ignoring me; I'm against you modelling one of each weapon on your Death Cult Assassin. If you convert your own DCAs, you can model them whatever way you want, as long as they can be identified with the weapon, if you model them with two different weapons, you can figure out where I stand on this.

I agree with the posters stating the DCA model is armed how it is, there is no additional profile or rules intended. The FAQ doesn't say, feel free to make DCA armed with 1 of each type of weapon you want or use whatever you like to represent a power weapon of subtype x.

It's quite clear now. In 5th you could use a sword, axe, halberd, maul all as normal power weapons (forget GK force weapons) with no difference in rules. Many models have shipped with different options (some with axe some with sword etc...). If you want to swap out that weapon type for another sure.

What's going on here is just MFA to create an even more powerful unit that has the versatility and advantage of two separate weapons with different rules.

Because me choosing legitimate wargear choices from my codex and modelling them is not MFA.

Seriously? Your lack of logic is astounding. Not only do you agree that you have modeled an official model to look like something else, and you agree that you've gained an advantage of it, but you're refusing to say you've modeled for advantage. Additionally while saying that, you're saying that if I make a crouching Wraithlord or attach sponsons to the front of the Land Raider or attach 15 inches wide extra armor to the sides of my Rhino, I am modelling for advantage.

In every case here the player has taken a miniature, then modelled it to look like something else, and gained an advantage. I'm awestruck by having to explain simple English. If you're so adamant on doing what you intend to do and your opponents allow it you don't have to try to make yourself feel better about modelling for advantage by arguing ceasessly about it on an internet forum. Your argument is unsupportable. It wouldn't be allowed at any of the grand tournaments I've attended through the years. Modelling for advantage has never been allowed, and most hobbyists avoid it at all costs.

kirsanth wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Oh, and please quote the rule which prevents me doing that.

Now I get what you meant, I did misread you. You mean adding weapons the vehicle can take onto the turret another weapon can take?

I do not see why that would even relate to the discussion.

All those four weapons are found on turrets, from official citadel bits. Due to the nature of the battlewagon model, you will only be able to fire all of them very rarely, due to them blocking each other's sight, or simply being on the wrong side of the wagon.

If I stack them on top of each other, I create a huge tower of weapons which will never have LoS issues or are unable to shoot. If changing a model which is provided by GW with nothing but swords, and is described as using swords in its fluff solely for the purpose of gaining an advantage in-game, is not modeling for advantage, then stacking turrets isn't either.

The point is, you are supposed to use a model exactly as if it were a model provided by GW, no matter what it looks like. At least this is what almost all people converting models to have cool locking models do. If you like models with axes, model them with axes. They still count as swords, if GW doesn't give them axes.

And I don't even know if axes are better than swords.

IdentifyZero wrote:Your tactical sergeant example doesn't fit in with the DCA having a sword/axe. He is a unique upgrade unit that can pay for any wargear options listed in his entry and can in theory, have avariety of combinations of weapons without issue.

And this, I think, is where you're running into conflict with this idea.

Because under the current rules, the DCA is also a unit that can have a variety of weapons according to the rules. So essentially what your argument is coming down to is the idea that plastic models can legally have whatever weapons are allowed by their unit entry, while FInecast or metal models can only legally have the weapons they come with.

Which just isn't going to fly with most players.


I suspect a large part of the cause for the division of opinion here is that some people think that all three power weapons are intended to be equal (as their rules all have their own pros and cons) and some feel that axes and mauls are inherently better and should be an extra rather than a regular option.

Since GW didn't add a points cost for changing your generic power weapon to an axe or a maul, it seems that GW themselves are going with the first option. And as such, which you choose to put on your model is entirely up to you.

IdentifyZero wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Please quote the exact rule allowing you to freely choose which weapons you can equip.

Each codex is rather explicit about that.

So is the rule which states you use whichever the model is armed with.

I agree with this much. That is why I am confused by the rest.

insaniak wrote:And this, I think, is where you're running into conflict with this idea.

Because under the current rules, the DCA is also a unit that can have a variety of weapons according to the rules. So essentially what your argument is coming down to is the idea that plastic models can legally have whatever weapons are allowed by their unit entry, while FInecast or metal models can only legally have the weapons they come with.

Which just isn't going to fly with most players.


I suspect a large part of the cause for the division of opinion here is that some people think that all three power weapons are intended to be equal (as their rules all have their own pros and cons) and some feel that axes and mauls are inherently better and should be an extra rather than a regular option.

Since GW didn't add a points cost for changing your generic power weapon to an axe or a maul, it seems that GW themselves are going with the first option. And as such, which you choose to put on your model is entirely up to you.

I'm pretre and I endorse this posting.

IdentifyZero wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Please quote the exact rule allowing you to freely choose which weapons you can equip.

Each codex is rather explicit about that.

So is the rule which states you use whichever the model is armed with.

Stating again though, since some of the thicker headed people keep ignoring me; I'm against you modelling one of each weapon on your Death Cult Assassin. If you convert your own DCAs, you can model them whatever way you want, as long as they can be identified with the weapon, if you model them with two different weapons, you can figure out where I stand on this.

I agree with the posters stating the DCA model is armed how it is, there is no additional profile or rules intended. The FAQ doesn't say, feel free to make DCA armed with 1 of each type of weapon you want or use whatever you like to represent a power weapon of subtype x.

It's quite clear now. In 5th you could use a sword, axe, halberd, maul all as normal power weapons (forget GK force weapons) with no difference in rules. Many models have shipped with different options (some with axe some with sword etc...). If you want to swap out that weapon type for another sure.

What's going on here is just MFA to create an even more powerful unit that has the versatility and advantage of two separate weapons with different rules.

Which is allowed under the current ruleset. The FAQ doesn't need to say "feel free to make DCA armed with 1 of each type of weapon you want or use" as the main rulebook already does that by saying that a model armed with a generic power weapon uses the rules for the weapons it is modelled with.

GW says that to determine what power weapon a model has you look at the weapon on the model in question. If that model is equipped with two power weapons in its wargear entry in its codex and is carrying a sword and an axe then those are the two power weapons it has.

Ok so looks like the gaming police are going to arrest the lot of you for gaming for advantage. Several counts of list building for advantage, Assembling models with wysiwyg weapons therefore modeling for advantage, playing in a competitive manner and therefore playing for advantage.

You heartless bastards should be ashamed. You should be drug out into the streets and your models melted down to make a knife to stab you with.

But is this seriously an argument? The person who points out that DCA models have swords used a Thunderwolf Calvary model before they were released. Obviously he had no problem modeling for advantage without comparing to the model by GW. The fact that they did not have one has little to do with your logical stand point.

OK, congratulations. People model for advantage all the time. It's called "putting the weapons you want on a model."

I mean, every time I build a model, it's for an advantage. I didn't convert 20 praetorians to carry plasma guns because I think plasma guns look neat.

there are two ways to view this. One is clearly to look at the "official" model, make a call about what it's armed with, and require all units of that type use that power weapon. The other is to view any vague power weapon as essentially unlocking the "this model may exchange any power weapon for a power sword, power ax, or power maul."

What MFA has, to me at least, always meant is gaining a "meta" advantage by modelling. Meaning an advantage beyond simply taking the best possible rules for a model, but one that gives an advantage in play due to the physics of a miniatures game.

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

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

You can put as many large items on your orks as you want. As it is clearly stated in the rulebook that any terrain or other features attached to a model cannot provide cover or block LoS to it, I'll still shoot your orks just as much as if they didn't have it, and your models will look ridiculous.

kirsanth wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Please quote the exact rule allowing you to freely choose which weapons you can equip.

Each codex is rather explicit about that.

Correct. The GK codex does not allow force axes.

kirsanth wrote:Do you guys claim MFA when ork player's paint their vehicles red? Or only the ones without red images on the website?

editing to add:
I have NEVER seen a red paint pot, of any variety, come with a vehicle.

Actually, rules do not require you to paint a vehicle red in oder to use RPJ, neither does it require you to pick RPJ when painting a vehicle red.

Stop spamming nonsense maybe, and find some rules instead?

That's the first sentence of the rules and it doesn't exclude conversions from citadel miniatures.

Conversions from citadel miniatures are not citadel miniatures. The are pretre models based on citadel miniatures.
Selling your conversions as citadel miniatures would be fraud.

pretre wrote:

Jidmah wrote:

pretre wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Replacing a model clearly using a sword (even in its fluff) with an axe is changing the model to gain an advantage. GW is not telling you to use whichever weapon you want. GW is telling you to look at the model to figure out which weapon it has. It clearly has a sword.

I converted my DCA from wyches. They do not clearly have swords. They clearly have a variety of weapons which I now need to classify as the different types of PW. That's perfectly legal.

Just like my orks don't get meltas from being converted from marines, your death cult assasins don't get power axes from being converted from witches.

That's because meltas aren't a legal choice for orks. Axes are for DCA.

pretre wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:even if it seems like GW didn't intend people to be throwing axes, lances and mauls on them.

Why then did they make that an option? The rules seem to disagree with you.

Please quote the exact rule allowing you to freely choose which weapons you can equip. And please don't quote the one telling you to look at models which are made by citadel. Because "model" is defined in the very first sentence of the rules, excluding anything custom-built.

That is the one. I used legal citadel models to make my wyches in 5th ed.


Why are they suddenly illegal when the rules say to look at their weapons and determine what kind of PW they have? The rules don't say 'If your model doesn't have the same kind of weapon as the stock model, you need to switch it back'.

Hmm, well, examining this image I see a few major issues:

#1. Some units don't have 2 weapons, failure of WYSIWG.

#2. Some units have options here that are not even listed in the new power weapons: Like your fist weapon I see on one guys hand.

#3. I think nobody cared about your wyches before either, since we're discussing the swaps on the official GW model and I said several times to you, you were free to arm them any way you like as long as they have the proper weapons you claim. If you WANTED my permission or blessing, you have it. ^.^

IdentifyZero wrote:Stating again though, since some of the thicker headed people keep ignoring me; I'm against you modelling one of each weapon on your Death Cult Assassin.

Yes, we recognize you are making your own house rule. And?

The rules say otherwise.

nolzur wrote:

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

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

You can put as many large items on your orks as you want. As it is clearly stated in the rulebook that any terrain or other features attached to a model cannot provide cover or block LoS to it, I'll still shoot your orks just as much as if they didn't have it, and your models will look ridiculous.

I'm not arguing that, you can shoot the orks holding the metal sheets. You can't shoot anyone behind them, because you don't see anything but metal sheets.

insaniak wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:Your tactical sergeant example doesn't fit in with the DCA having a sword/axe. He is a unique upgrade unit that can pay for any wargear options listed in his entry and can in theory, have avariety of combinations of weapons without issue.

And this, I think, is where you're running into conflict with this idea.

Because under the current rules, the DCA is also a unit that can have a variety of weapons according to the rules. So essentially what your argument is coming down to is the idea that plastic models can legally have whatever weapons are allowed by their unit entry, while FInecast or metal models can only legally have the weapons they come with.

Which just isn't going to fly with most players.


I suspect a large part of the cause for the division of opinion here is that some people think that all three power weapons are intended to be equal (as their rules all have their own pros and cons) and some feel that axes and mauls are inherently better and should be an extra rather than a regular option.

Since GW didn't add a points cost for changing your generic power weapon to an axe or a maul, it seems that GW themselves are going with the first option. And as such, which you choose to put on your model is entirely up to you.

I am not denying them the chance to swap their SWORDS for AXES. I am saying swapping 1 sword for an axe and having a sword and an axe is the issue.

Polonius wrote:OK, congratulations. People model for advantage all the time. It's called "putting the weapons you want on a model."

I mean, every time I build a model, it's for an advantage. I didn't convert 20 praetorians to carry plasma guns because I think plasma guns look neat.

there are two ways to view this. One is clearly to look at the "official" model, make a call about what it's armed with, and require all units of that type use that power weapon. The other is to view any vague power weapon as essentially unlocking the "this model may exchange any power weapon for a power sword, power ax, or power maul."

I guess I modelled for advantage by putting twin-linked Missile Pods on my Crisis Suits. After all, the set only came with one and none of the pictures on the GW website show the suit armed with twin-linked weaponry.

Joe Mama wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:Stating again though, since some of the thicker headed people keep ignoring me; I'm against you modelling one of each weapon on your Death Cult Assassin.

Yes, we recognize you are making your own house rule. And?

The rules say otherwise.

Claiming someone is using a house rule because you cannot logically or mentally keep up with them is not a valid retort.

IdentifyZero wrote:

insaniak wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:Your tactical sergeant example doesn't fit in with the DCA having a sword/axe. He is a unique upgrade unit that can pay for any wargear options listed in his entry and can in theory, have avariety of combinations of weapons without issue.

And this, I think, is where you're running into conflict with this idea.

Because under the current rules, the DCA is also a unit that can have a variety of weapons according to the rules. So essentially what your argument is coming down to is the idea that plastic models can legally have whatever weapons are allowed by their unit entry, while FInecast or metal models can only legally have the weapons they come with.

Which just isn't going to fly with most players.


I suspect a large part of the cause for the division of opinion here is that some people think that all three power weapons are intended to be equal (as their rules all have their own pros and cons) and some feel that axes and mauls are inherently better and should be an extra rather than a regular option.

Since GW didn't add a points cost for changing your generic power weapon to an axe or a maul, it seems that GW themselves are going with the first option. And as such, which you choose to put on your model is entirely up to you.

I am not denying them the chance to swap their SWORDS for AXES. I am saying swapping 1 sword for an axe and having a sword and an axe is the issue.

I asked you before but WHY? There is nothing in the RULES which says that this is not possible.

Jidmah wrote:[Conversions from citadel miniatures are not citadel miniatures. The are pretre models based on citadel miniatures.
Selling your conversions as citadel miniatures would be fraud.

I can't speak for jurisdictions outside of Ohio (the only state in which I"m licensed), but you'd be hard pressed find case law to support that argument.

IdentifyZero wrote:I am not denying them the chance to swap their SWORDS for AXES. I am saying swapping 1 sword for an axe and having a sword and an axe is the issue.

An issue for you personally. Please tell us how this relates in any way at all to the 6th edition rules, which permit one sword and one axe.

Jidmah wrote:

That's the first sentence of the rules and it doesn't exclude conversions from citadel miniatures.

Conversions from citadel miniatures are not citadel miniatures. The are pretre models based on citadel miniatures.
Selling your conversions as citadel miniatures would be fraud.

Wait, so you're saying it isn't legal to use conversions in 40k anymore?

Jidmah wrote:The GK codex does not allow force axes.

It does now.

kirsanth wrote:

Jidmah wrote:The GK codex does not allow force axes.

It does now.

Power axes. Not nemesis force axes.

IdentifyZero wrote:Hmm, well, examining this image I see a few major issues:

#1. Some units don't have 2 weapons, failure of WYSIWG.

#2. Some units have options here that are not even listed in the new power weapons: Like your fist weapon I see on one guys hand.

Every model has two weapons. The rulebook covers weapons that don't fit into the normal batch as counting as swords.

Jidmah wrote:Stop spamming nonsense maybe, and find some rules instead?

The rule was posted. Look at the model. You are looking at a web page.

Oh, I bet if you'd start selling Death-Cults with Axes as official Citadel models, GW would support that argument rather quickly.

Joe Mama wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

Jidmah wrote:The GK codex does not allow force axes.

It does now.

Power axes. Not nemesis force axes.

This is more correct.

IIRC though, there are force weapons that can be power weapons that can be an ax now.
I did not really look that up though, since the rules being ignored are in the main book.

kirsanth wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Stop spamming nonsense maybe, and find some rules instead?

The rule was posted. Look at the model. You are looking at a web page.

So I'm allowed to use stompas as warbosses now?

I mean, obviously I'm allowed to switch models however I want, right?

It's even sold by GW!

IdentifyZero wrote:

Hmm, well, examining this image I see a few major issues:

#1. Some units don't have 2 weapons, failure of WYSIWG.

#2. Some units have options here that are not even listed in the new power weapons: Like your fist weapon I see on one guys hand.

#3. I think nobody cared about your wyches before either, since we're discussing the swaps on the official GW model and I said several times to you, you were free to arm them any way you like as long as they have the proper weapons you claim. If you WANTED my permission or blessing, you have it. ^.^

As someone pointed out earlier, one of the official GW models for a DCA doesn't have two weapons and so fails WYSIWYG.

Jidmah wrote:Stop spamming nonsense maybe, and find some rules instead?

I love the dichotomy.

Jidmah wrote:So I'm allowed to use stompas as warbosses now?

I mean, obviously I'm allowed to switch models however I want, right?

It's even sold by GW!

But, sure, you even got the "as" of "counts as" right. I would not complain.
I use a converted carnifex for a Tryannofex and another as a Tervigon. Have for years and never had a complaint.

Jidmah wrote:Oh, I bet if you'd start selling Death-Cults with Axes as official Citadel models, GW would support that argument rather quickly.

Stop trying to divert. No one is seriously talking about selling, they're just addresing your earlier point. You said that I couldn't count my converted minis (from citadel stock) as valid for this discussion since the rules says only Citadel miniatures.

jidmah wrote:Please quote the exact rule allowing you to freely choose which weapons you can equip. And please don't quote the one telling you to look at models which are made by citadel. Because "model" is defined in the very first sentence of the rules, excluding anything custom-built.

pretre wrote:

Jidmah wrote:That's the first sentence of the rules and it doesn't exclude conversions from citadel miniatures.

Conversions from citadel miniatures are not citadel miniatures. The are pretre models based on citadel miniatures.
Selling your conversions as citadel miniatures would be fraud.

Wait, so you're saying it isn't legal to use conversions in 40k anymore?

@Jidmah

And I don't even know if axes are better than swords.

It grants units with "power weapons" more flexibilty...

case in point... I could field a full squad of banshee but stick 3 or 4 Axes in there to truly take on 2+ armour saves...

I don't necessarily think it's game breaking, but with 6ed, it just seems odd that this could be done. (I see arguments for both sides...)

I just really wished the Big Choppa was a powa weapon...

Jidmah wrote:Oh, I bet if you'd start selling Death-Cults with Axes as official Citadel models, GW would support that argument rather quickly.

that's a trademark issue, not a fraud issue.

Trademark law exists to protect the owner of IP, fraud to protect a purchaser.

Unless a person could show that they only bought a model because it was misrepresented as a citadel miniature, and wasn't one, and they suffered damages could they show fraud. A conversion of a citadel mini is still a citadel mini, it's just one that's been converted. If I add a bitching spoiler to my Hyundai, it's still a Hyundai when I sell it.

IdentifyZero wrote:

pretre wrote:

Jidmah wrote:

pretre wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Replacing a model clearly using a sword (even in its fluff) with an axe is changing the model to gain an advantage. GW is not telling you to use whichever weapon you want. GW is telling you to look at the model to figure out which weapon it has. It clearly has a sword.

I converted my DCA from wyches. They do not clearly have swords. They clearly have a variety of weapons which I now need to classify as the different types of PW. That's perfectly legal.

Just like my orks don't get meltas from being converted from marines, your death cult assasins don't get power axes from being converted from witches.

That's because meltas aren't a legal choice for orks. Axes are for DCA.

pretre wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:even if it seems like GW didn't intend people to be throwing axes, lances and mauls on them.

Why then did they make that an option? The rules seem to disagree with you.

Please quote the exact rule allowing you to freely choose which weapons you can equip. And please don't quote the one telling you to look at models which are made by citadel. Because "model" is defined in the very first sentence of the rules, excluding anything custom-built.

That is the one. I used legal citadel models to make my wyches in 5th ed.


Why are they suddenly illegal when the rules say to look at their weapons and determine what kind of PW they have? The rules don't say 'If your model doesn't have the same kind of weapon as the stock model, you need to switch it back'.

Hmm, well, examining this image I see a few major issues:

#1. Some units don't have 2 weapons, failure of WYSIWG.

#2. Some units have options here that are not even listed in the new power weapons: Like your fist weapon I see on one guys hand.

#3. I think nobody cared about your wyches before either, since we're discussing the swaps on the official GW model and I said several times to you, you were free to arm them any way you like as long as they have the proper weapons you claim. If you WANTED my permission or blessing, you have it. ^.^

The bit that is in bold. One of the "official" models doesn't have two swords so isn't WYSIWYG.

There is no issue with converted models I have 5 crusaders, (two Metal GW ones and 3 conveted ones, each with a power axe) They are used all the same, and not MFA. Just made from componets that went together. Does this mean that I can't use my crusaders?

It all seem completely with in both the rules and the idea that every collection is individual. Don't see an issue. If someone has a cool conversion I am happy to play against it. That is the true thing that should be assessed, is if it is a Good converted model and if the army looks amazing.

Then I can't go into a GW store with my AOBR nobs, because I repositioned their arms?

MFA is one thing on one model. It's being implied that people who MFA are TFGs.

What's wrong on taking the best option for your model if the codex allows it?

The power axe isn't the bee's knees and it doesn't break the game to have a DCA equipped with both. I wouldn't protest just because the "official" models have swords.

Despite weak protests to the contrary, it doesn't matter what the official model has. The rulebook lists what wargear is possible. You take your model and give it whatever legal wargear you want, paying for whatever upgrades you have to, of course. And that's it.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:

Hmm, well, examining this image I see a few major issues:

#1. Some units don't have 2 weapons, failure of WYSIWG.

#2. Some units have options here that are not even listed in the new power weapons: Like your fist weapon I see on one guys hand.

#3. I think nobody cared about your wyches before either, since we're discussing the swaps on the official GW model and I said several times to you, you were free to arm them any way you like as long as they have the proper weapons you claim. If you WANTED my permission or blessing, you have it. ^.^

As someone pointed out earlier, one of the official GW models for a DCA doesn't have two weapons and so fails WYSIWYG.

They were legal models nearly TWENTY YEARS AGO when first introduced. These sculpts are what, 1995?

Destrado wrote:The power axe isn't the bee's knees and it doesn't break the game to have a DCA equipped with both. I wouldn't protest just because the "official" models have swords.

True. DCA, with an axe is still worse than they were in 5th Edition.

IdentifyZero wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:

Hmm, well, examining this image I see a few major issues:

#1. Some units don't have 2 weapons, failure of WYSIWG.

#2. Some units have options here that are not even listed in the new power weapons: Like your fist weapon I see on one guys hand.

#3. I think nobody cared about your wyches before either, since we're discussing the swaps on the official GW model and I said several times to you, you were free to arm them any way you like as long as they have the proper weapons you claim. If you WANTED my permission or blessing, you have it. ^.^

As someone pointed out earlier, one of the official GW models for a DCA doesn't have two weapons and so fails WYSIWYG.

They were legal models nearly TWENTY YEARS AGO when first introduced. These sculpts are what, 1995?

So? I fail to see how the age of a model matters with regards to the discussion at hand. That model is not WYSIWYG whereas a converted model armed with a Power Sword and a Power Axe is.

Isn't MFA a house rule anyway?

They were released after the Inquisitor 54mm models, so I'd say 2004 or later.

kirsanth wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Stop spamming nonsense maybe, and find some rules instead?

I love the dichotomy.

Jidmah wrote:So I'm allowed to use stompas as warbosses now?

I mean, obviously I'm allowed to switch models however I want, right?

It's even sold by GW!

But, sure, you even got the "as" of "counts as" right.

Sure, it counts as warboss, no intentions of bringing a super-heavy to a regular game, of course.

It's awesome how many models can fight it in combat though. And its mega-gatler(counts as Shoota, of course) will always have LoS, too.

Polonius wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Oh, I bet if you'd start selling Death-Cults with Axes as official Citadel models, GW would support that argument rather quickly.

that's a trademark issue, not a fraud issue.

Trademark law exists to protect the owner of IP, fraud to protect a purchaser.

Unless a person could show that they only bought a model because it was misrepresented as a citadel miniature, and wasn't one, and they suffered damages could they show fraud. A conversion of a citadel mini is still a citadel mini, it's just one that's been converted. If I add a bitching spoiler to my Hyundai, it's still a Hyundai when I sell it.

Well, you're the lawyer, I'm a programmer.

Changing the weapon is a major change in function. If you change the engine of your Hyundai to something else, it's no longer the car you bought.

IdentifyZero wrote:They were legal models nearly TWENTY YEARS AGO when first introduced. These sculpts are what, 1995?

Actually, they weren't legal when they came out either, as the original DCA had a PW and a CCW. And they came out in 2004.

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

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

I would assume so. It wouldn't be as lame if you had to attack x times with each specific weapon but I do not think you do. It's not the same as maybe have 4 banshees out of ten with axes, so you can have a multi purpose unit..

The DCA thing effectively allows you x attacks all with a profile you select before you swing. Is it legal, sure. Is it lame? Kindve?

I agree it's a free buff for the DCA's but I do think it's allowed. I'll scoff at it and frown at you, but I won't be a child and refuse to play and I certainly won't call you a cheater.

Lastly I think that Therion (as usual) and IZ (to a much lesser extent) have been rude, insulting, incredulous, and outright petty in their stance. It reeks of a child throwing a tantrum about fairness. While I agree with them at least on the issue of the DCA equipping 2 varying weapons (mostly with IZ I suspect, that it's allowed but kindve dirty). I do not agree with Therions broad strokes of claiming that your only options are what comes on the sprue. Sucks to be have any model whose upgrades don't come on their orginal sprues. I suppose that a GK Dread should never ever model TL Autocannons.. they don't come in the box you know. Clearly MFA

IdentifyZero wrote:I am not denying them the chance to swap their SWORDS for AXES. I am saying swapping 1 sword for an axe and having a sword and an axe is the issue.

Yes, but why is it an issue? The rules consider them equal. If every instance of a power weapon can be either a sword or an axe, then how many weapons a model has and which of them it chooses to wield is completely open.


Just hypothetically, if GW tomorrow releases a DCA plastic kit that includes swords, axes and mauls, will it still (in your opinion) be legal to equip them only with two of the same weapon?

Because, as you claimed with the Tactical sergeant thing, apparently, it's legal to make use of a unit's options, even if they're not provided with the model, so long as GW makes the model with weapons?

Jidmah wrote:If you change the engine of your Hyundai to something else, it's no longer the car you bought.

Once you start a car it's no longer the car you bought. It's still a Hynudai. It's just been modified.

You're trying to draw an arbitrary line with no basis.
If I use 2 blobs of play-doh with 2 swords stuck in them for counts-as DCAs - they're WYSIWYG and the right height, so it's cool?
But if I use 2 axes instead it's suddenly bad and I should feel bad.

Joe Mama wrote:

Destrado wrote:The power axe isn't the bee's knees and it doesn't break the game to have a DCA equipped with both. I wouldn't protest just because the "official" models have swords.

True. DCA, with an axe is still worse than they were in 5th Edition.

If you're changing a model solely for game advantage, you're modeling for advantage.

If you equip even a single axe to a DCA, all the MFA shenanigans are perfectly legal to use against you. Including modeling all special weapons on poles and their users with periscopes.

Jidmah wrote:If you're changing a model solely for game advantage, you're modeling for advantage.

Page reference?

I am really confused by this rhetoric,

5th edition i could have 2 power weapons/1 power weapon, 1 powerfist/1 power weapon, 1 thunderhammer/ on my Death company? (modeling for advantage??)

Rules even stated that you had to choose between which weapon you were using.

Now i can give my CCS Commander 2 plasma pistols (modeling for advantage??)

So if i take differnet weapons I am MFA??? what is going on here??

Ok so putting an Axe on a DCA is the EXACT same thing as using a Stompa for a warboss?

Just curious, but what was your stance on TWC before the model came out? Did you let people use their conversion models? Or were you TFG?

RegulusBlack wrote:I am really confused by this rhetoric

The point seems to be that if your models USED to have 2 different weapons you are cool. If you change them now, you are cheating.

Slackermagee's 'So you want to grab one of those cool AP2 weapons' guide for people who can't read the rules or the FAQ:

Did the FAQ/Errata replace power [sword/maul/axe] with 'power weapon' in your relevant unit entry? If yes, proceed below. If no, then, well... no. Stop. You may not replace the weapon with an axe/sword/maul if the (FAQ'd) unit entry lacks generic power weapons.

Have you marked down which type of power weapon the model is using in the list you are playing? If yes, proceed below. If no, then go back and write it down. No backsies.

Have you modeled the correct type (or something approximating the right type while deviating from what originally came on the model) of power weapon on the model? If yes, congratulations! You get to use that model without fear of reprisal. If no, Booooo! Lazy player, you can probably get away with using it if your opponent is nice but you have deigned not to put the effort in. Boooo!

Thunderfrog wrote:I agree it's a free buff for the DCA's but I do think it's allowed.

Like I said earlier, DCA, even with an axe, are still nerfed compared to 5th edition. But this is actually irrelevant because buff or nerf, it is legal. GW could decide to FAQ it the other way, but that'd be a rules change.

kirsanth wrote:

Jidmah wrote:If you're changing a model solely for game advantage, you're modeling for advantage.

Page reference?

Page 4.

So how about my stompa-warboss? It's just as legal as using axes on DCA, right?

Jidmah wrote:If you're changing a model solely for game advantage, you're modeling for advantage.

I am changing WARGEAR for an advantage. Welcome to 6th edition, where 'power weapon' is a category, giving us options.

If you equip even a single axe to a DCA, all the MFA shenanigans are perfectly legal to use against you. Including modeling all special weapons on poles and their users with periscopes.

Did I just get punk'd? Legally taking a weapon a model can take is equivalent to have a special weapon on a stick 15 inches above the base? Come on now dude. Let's get real here.

Savageconvoy wrote:Ok so putting an Axe on a DCA is the EXACT same thing as using a Stompa for a warboss?

Just curious, but what was your stance on TWC before the model came out? Did you let people use their conversion models? Or were you TFG?

There is a difference building a model because it doesn't exist, and using a different model than the existing one because want an in-game advantage.

insaniak wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:I am not denying them the chance to swap their SWORDS for AXES. I am saying swapping 1 sword for an axe and having a sword and an axe is the issue.

Yes, but why is it an issue? The rules consider them equal. If every instance of a power weapon can be either a sword or an axe, then how many weapons a model has and which of them it chooses to wield is completely open.


Just hypothetically, if GW tomorrow releases a DCA plastic kit that includes swords, axes and mauls, will it still (in your opinion) be legal to equip them only with two of the same weapon?

Also note that GW would only put one of each type of weapon on the sprue so you'd have to use two different types unless you bought two kits.

Jidmah wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

Jidmah wrote:If you're changing a model solely for game advantage, you're modeling for advantage.

Page reference?

Page 4.

So how about my stompa-warboss? It's just as legal as using axes on DCA, right?

Since you're strawmaning - sure.
Not that I'd agree to that game, but it's not illegal.

Jidmah wrote:There is a difference building a model because it doesn't exist, and using a different model than the existing one because want in-game an advantage.

No there is not. You are being obtuse.
There is not a model for the legal codex option.
So building one is legal.

This is 0% different than tervigons until recently or any other option that is listed in a codex without the option being on a sprue.

Editing to add:
Converting a model to match a legal codex option is more legal than saying MFA is not legal.

By the way, I love the reductio ad absurdum arguments. It's like it's a newsgroup in 1998.

Using a stompa as a warboss is classic MFA, because the model in question gains advantages based solely on how the model is built. It's physical dimiensions, proportions, etc. What's more, it violates the idea that conversions and counts-as stay close to the proportions of the original model.

The issue here isn't if adding a power ax is modelling for advantage. The issues is "does the DCA have the option to take a power ax." If it does, than converting one to an ax is no more MFA than converting your captain to have an ax. If it does not, than adding a power ax is no more legal than adding a plasma cannon or storm shield.

The only slight contradiction I see with the current Power Weapon rule and freely choosing what you want in instances of the different types of power weapons is Lychguard.

They have the 'Hyperphase Sword', which, in all respects, is a sword; well, is clearly states it is a 'Power Weapon', not a 'Power Sword'.

Bloodletters were FAQ'd to be amended to Power Swords, yet Lychguard weren't.

So Hyperphase Axes...?

Was it modeling for advantage to build boneswords for my Tyranid Warriors before they were released?

It's a codex legal option.
The model/option is not provided by GW.

How are those two sentences different when applied to DCAs? Are you trying to argue it's not a codex legal option?

rigeld2 wrote: Are you trying to argue it's not a codex legal option?

He is stating that it is MFA to use it.

Jidmah wrote:

If you're changing a model solely for game advantage, you're modeling for advantage.

If you equip even a single axe to a DCA, all the MFA shenanigans are perfectly legal to use against you. Including modeling all special weapons on poles and their users with periscopes.

And that's were I think you're going wrong.

By your logic, I can't change an AOBR captain to have a combi-weapon, power fist, etc.

It's modelling for advantage in cases where the rules are mostly obscured, in my opinion, like Orks with large steel shields, etc. In this case you are purposefuly modifying a part of the model for what appear to be aesthetical reasons, in order to gain an advantage. That's low.

In this case, you're equipping a model that has power weapons on his rules to have two different power weapons, adding some versatility for the model. Nothing wrong with doing that on them, or Banshees, or Wyches, or whatever. You're modelling a different tactical choice.

It's not easy for me to explain and someone will probably do it 1000 times better, but you know it's two completely different aspects of modelling and actually having a choice doesn't mean that person is TFG. It's a question of paying ten points for a power sword, or ten points for a power axe. Each has it's pros and cons.

Joe Mama wrote:

Jidmah wrote:If you're changing a model solely for game advantage, you're modeling for advantage.

I am changing WARGEAR for an advantage. Welcome to 6th edition, where 'power weapon' is a category, giving us options.

You are not told to use three weapons interchangeably. You are told to look at the model to find out which of the weapons you are using.

If your model doesn't come with one of the three option, it doesn't get it. If it does, go wild. Heck, even a GW-drawn picture of a DCA with an axe would be sufficient for me. Same for any other unit.

"The art of the blade, the different type of incisions, lacerations and puncture." is clearly not speaking of axes.

If you equip even a single axe to a DCA, all the MFA shenanigans are perfectly legal to use against you. Including modeling all special weapons on poles and their users with periscopes.

Did I just get punk'd? Legally taking a weapon a model can take is equivalent to have a special weapon on a stick 15 inches above the base? Come on now dude. Let's get real here.

Jidmah wrote:If your model doesn't come with one of the three option, it doesn't get it.

This is your rule, not GWs. GW lists what is available to use in the game in the codex.

Jidmah wrote:There is a difference building a model because it doesn't exist, and using a different model than the existing one because want an in-game advantage.

6th Edition says a model with a 'Power Weapon' can use a Power Sword, a Power Axe, a Power Maul, a Power Halberd or a Power Stave. There exists no GK henchman Crusader, or GK henchmen DCA, which has a a Power Axe, a Power Maul, a Power Halberd or a Power Stave. Therefore, since the model does not exist, it can be built to display legal wargear. QED? Yup.

Jidmah wrote:If your model doesn't come with one of the three option, it doesn't get it.

So an Assault Sergeant can have a power axe, but a Tactical Sergeant or a Captain can't?

The issue here, as far as I can tell, is that a model is armed (rules wise) with whatever the model is armed with (model-wise).

Thus, a captain with a power ax has a power ax.

the question seems to be: are the options for what a model can be armed with limited to the model choices available prior to the release of 6th edition? Or can a model that (rules wise) has only "power weapons" choose freely from the three as appropriately modeled.

The problem with the former option is that it makes the legality of a players models dependent on a TOs knowledge of the citadel range. AFAIK, no archon model has ever had an ax. Could I build an archon to use a power ax? How many of the units that can take power weapons ever had a citadel model with a maul?

I think that any rule interpertation that requires a person to carry around a Citadel Catalogue showing that their wargear was once modeled is inherently flawed.

rigeld2 wrote:Was it modeling for advantage to build boneswords for my Tyranid Warriors before they were released?

It's a codex legal option.
The model/option is not provided by GW.

How are those two sentences different when applied to DCAs? Are you trying to argue it's not a codex legal option?

Jidmah wrote:If your model doesn't come with one of the three option, it doesn't get it.

So Tyranid Warriors with boneswords were MFA? Lash Whips?

Shrikes?

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.

Jidmah wrote:You are gaining wargear options by changing a model. This is unique, but still MFA.

It is legal wargear. I model my model properly to show that legal wargear.


Please point to a rule in the codex which states I cannot model wargear which I legally can use.

Polonius wrote:Using a stompa as a warboss is classic MFA, because the model in question gains advantages based solely on how the model is built.

Exactly. If you don't model an Axe on your DCA, you don't have an axe. Thus, the DCA gains an advantage solely based on how you altered the model.

Krisanth, you still have failed to prove that the power axe is a legal choice for a model that, in fact, does not have a power axe.

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

That's so incorrect it hurts a little bit.

You've proven that for you it might be modeling for advantage. I'd willingly admit that I like the look of axe/sword better, because I'm not embarrassed by that.

You haven't proven that taking a codex legal option is MFA and therefore bad.

Therion wrote:
Now the only room for debate is whether I think modelling for advantage is acceptable or not.

Not entirely true. Just becuase one form of MFA is socially acceptable does not mean all will be.

There's a distinction between modelling for advantage and modelling for unfair advantage.

Therion wrote: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.

1) Look at your GK DCA codex entry. Notice it says 'Power Weapon.'
2) Look in your shiny new 6th edition rulebook. Notice it says 'Power Weapon' is a category, with different weapon types.
3) Further notice that your shiny new 6th edition rulebook allows you to pick and choose within this 'Power Weapon' category, and futhermore, to clearly model your model as WYSIWYG, so as not to confuse your opponent over which kind of power weapon your model has.
4) Build your model, with its legal wargear (any kind of weapon type within the 'power weapon' category). Since legal wargear must be modeled as WYSIWYG you ALWAYS have to model your wargear properly. That's a no brainer, but I think I had to spell that out.


The end.

Therion wrote:Now the only room for debate is whether I think modelling for advantage is acceptable or not.

It's really not that simple. Because under your broad definition of modelling for advantage, any weapon swap from whatever the model is supplied with is modelling for advantage. If I buy one of GW's old metal special weapons marines with a plasma gun, and I swap that plasma gun for a melta because I think meltas are better, then by your broad definition that is modelling for advantage and therefore the model is illegal...

Which is clearly ridiculous.

Modelling for advantage is discouraged where it actually leads to an abuse of loopholes in the rules. In this case, GW have given us new rules for power weapons that allow them to function as any one of multiple different types depending on what is on the model. Without any rules governing who can have which of those types beyond 'look at the model' giving a model with access to a power weapon any of those different weapons is no more modelling for advantage than making use of any other weapons option available to the model.

rigeld2 wrote:

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

That's so incorrect it hurts a little bit.

You've proven that for you it might be modeling for advantage. I'd willingly admit that I like the look of axe/sword better, because I'm not embarrassed by that.

You haven't proven that taking a codex legal option is MFA and therefore bad.

Hi,

Instead of refuting other's well thought out posts and arguments, you have insulted him? I find this indicative of other issues. Namely, you have lost your ground and are not resorting to just flat out saying he is wrong without proving anything yourself.

There's the door. You just slammed it in your own face.

Good work.

rigeld2 wrote:

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

That's so incorrect it hurts a little bit.

You've proven that for you it might be modeling for advantage. I'd willingly admit that I like the look of axe/sword better, because I'm not embarrassed by that.

You haven't proven that taking a codex legal option is MFA and therefore bad.

What's interested about therions chain of reasoning is that it's identical to any other modeling choice.

My praetorian plasma gunners have an advantage because I modelled them.

My Tactical sargeants have an advantage because I modelled them with power fists.

Those arguing that these converstions are MFA are really only diluting the moral weight MFA would have.

insaniak wrote:

Jidmah wrote:If your model doesn't come with one of the three option, it doesn't get it.

So an Assault Sergeant can have a power axe, but a Tactical Sergeant or a Captain can't?

Pretty much.

Joe Mama wrote:

Jidmah wrote:There is a difference building a model because it doesn't exist, and using a different model than the existing one because want an in-game advantage.

6th Edition says a model with a 'Power Weapon' can use a Power Sword, a Power Axe, a Power Maul, a Power Halberd or a Power Stave. There exists no GK henchman Crusader, or GK henchmen DCA, which has a a Power Axe, a Power Maul, a Power Halberd or a Power Stave. Therefore, since the model does not exist, it can be built to display legal wargear. QED? Yup.

That's why I keep asking people to quote the rules (which none of you do).
What you just stated is not what the rules say.
The rule is specifically worded to not read "models with powerweapons pick one of the following".
If models exists for a unit, and it does not have the option for one of the power-weapons, it can not use them.

rigeld2 wrote:So Tyranid Warriors with boneswords were MFA? Lash Whips?

Shrikes?

I haven't looked at the Tyranid FAQ yet. Are you forced to tell your bug's equipment by looking at them now?

IdentifyZero wrote:Instead of refuting other's well thought out posts and arguments, you have insulted him?

There was no insult in the post that you just quoted.

Jidmah wrote:Krisanth, you still have failed to prove that the power axe is a legal choice for a model that, in fact, does not have a power axe.

I am not trying to, you are.

I am stating that the model with an axe that has selected the codex option for a power weapon is using a power axe.

That's so incorrect it hurts a little bit.

There's nothing subjective about modelling for advantage. Your opinion does not matter. I tried to explain this issue in layman's terms so that even the young and inexperienced can understand but the wilful ignorance is overbearing. Nothing more can be said or done in this thread.

Jidmah wrote:

insaniak wrote:So an Assault Sergeant can have a power axe, but a Tactical Sergeant or a Captain can't?

Pretty much.

And that doesn't strike you as just the teensiest bit ridiculous?


Because to take that a little further, it appears that if I buy a plastic Captain, he can't legally have a power axe... but if I buy a Finecast Captain, he can...

I don't understand the issue.

If you take the time to model your models with Power Axes, or Mauls, or Halberds, or whatever, when the codex option is "Power Weapon", people should have no problem letting you use whatever is modeled on the model.

However, if you have a bunch of Power Swords, and you say they are Power Axes, that's against WYSIWYG. So, if you want to use Power Axes on your Crusaders, or Wychs, or whatever, if the codex entry is "Power Weapon", you have to go through the effort of converting the model to do so. And if you do, you have my blessings.

Anything like a whip, or a chain, being a 'power weapon' would fall under 'unusual power weapons', since there is nothing to define them as fairly. It's not an Axe, since it doesn't have a large cutting head, it's not a sword due to the fact it's not a blade, and it's not a staff since it's not a large wooden/metal pole. It would be an 'unusual' power weapon.

Jidmah wrote:

insaniak wrote:

Jidmah wrote:If your model doesn't come with one of the three option, it doesn't get it.

So an Assault Sergeant can have a power axe, but a Tactical Sergeant or a Captain can't?

Pretty much.

IdentifyZero wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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

That's so incorrect it hurts a little bit.

You've proven that for you it might be modeling for advantage. I'd willingly admit that I like the look of axe/sword better, because I'm not embarrassed by that.

You haven't proven that taking a codex legal option is MFA and therefore bad.

Hi,

Instead of refuting other's well thought out posts and arguments, you have insulted him? I find this indicative of other issues. Namely, you have lost your ground and are not resorting to just flat out saying he is wrong without proving anything yourself.

There's the door. You just slammed it in your own face.

Good work.

Actually no - I didn't insult him at all.
I said that his wording hurt to read. It did.
He said he would be embarrassed to say that he liked the way they looked. I said I wouldn't.
I said that he hasn't proven that a codex option is MFA.

I'd like an apology.

Therion wrote:There's nothing subjective about modelling for advantage.

There is. The assumption that it is negative.

I guess we've all reached the point where we realize that as gamers we build our models to have advantages when we play.

Good job, internet.

Now, is this unfair or against the rules in any way?

Crazyterran wrote:I don't understand the issue.

If you take the time to model your models with Power Axes, or Mauls, or Halberds, or whatever, when the codex option is "Power Weapon", people should have no problem letting you use whatever is modeled on the model.

Yes you do. You understand it perfectly.

Therion wrote:

That's so incorrect it hurts a little bit.

There's nothing subjective about modelling for advantage. Your opinion does not matter. I tried to explain this issue in layman's terms so that even the young and inexperienced can understand but the wilful ignorance is overbearing. Nothing more can be said or done in this thread.

If my opinion doesn't matter, then why did you describe it so subjectively?
Thanks for the insult though.

Arguing that converting a plastic captain to hold a power ax is modelling for advantage is like saying your mom is a mony launderer because when she washed your jeans they had a twenty in them.

It's correct in a techincal way that ignores the actual meaning of the terms.

Yes, you literally modeled for an advantage. and yes, you literally laundered money.

Doesn't show anything worth showing.

kirsanth wrote:

Crazyterran wrote:I don't understand the issue.

If you take the time to model your models with Power Axes, or Mauls, or Halberds, or whatever, when the codex option is "Power Weapon", people should have no problem letting you use whatever is modeled on the model.

Yes you do. You understand it perfectly.

So the issue is that people don't want to let people use the models they modeled even though the codex says "Power Weapon" and not "Power Sword"?

I... really?

They get +1 S and AP2 for axes, for example, but they strike at I1. Kill them before they hit you!

If you are worried about your Termies that bad, give them Lightning Claws and laugh at their attempts to kill you with axes. Really.

Modelling for advantage is discouraged where it actually leads to an abuse of loopholes in the rules. In this case, GW have given us new rules for power weapons that allow them to function as any one of multiple different types depending on what is on the model. Without any rules governing who can have which of those types beyond 'look at the model' giving a model with access to a power weapon any of those different weapons is no more modelling for advantage than making use of any other weapons option available to the model.

For 99% of entries I would agree with you, but do consider the DCA.

If it has all swords or all axes that would be one thing, as it would either have 4 AP3 Init 6 attacks on the charge or it would have 4 AP2 Init 1 attacks on the charge. However, modeling both allows you to be able to decide when charging whether or not to use 4 of either attacks while only one of each weapon is modeled. Usually this sort of options in tactics or attack modes is accompanied by the purchase of extra wargear. Since GW does not make attacks per weapon modeled.. (IE, the above DCA doesn't have 2 AP3 Init 6 and 2 AP2 Init 1 attacks) some find it hard to believe it realistic or fair that a model with only 1 of a given weapon equipped can make 4 attacks with it.

I fall into that camp, but I also realize this isn't GW"s first oversight and it won't be their last. It's lame in my eyes but certainly not cheating. Nor would I thing to call people modeling this way a cheater.. nor would I consider them "obtuse" for thinking it's fine or disagreeing with me.

Jidmah wrote:If models exists for a unit, and it does not have the option for one of the power-weapons, it can not use them.

This isn't in the rules. You just made this up. In 6th, if you see the phrase "power weapon" in a codex then what kind of "power weapon" is it? What's your answer to this question? Please answer and then read on...


You are pretending there needs to be options for the type of 'power weapon' but you ignore that in 6th edition, the phrase 'power weapon' doesn't tell you the type. Looking at the model on the table tells you the type of power weapon.

Jidmah wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:So Tyranid Warriors with boneswords were MFA? Lash Whips?

Shrikes?

I haven't looked at the Tyranid FAQ yet. Are you forced to tell your bug's equipment by looking at them now?

Well yes - because of WYSIWYG. How else am I supposed to model boneswords?
Remember,

Jidmah wrote:If your model doesn't come with one of the three option, it doesn't get it.

Warriors still don't come with Boneswords or Lashwhips, Shrikes still don't exist, neither does the Harpy...

Thunderfrog wrote:For 99% of entries I would agree with you, but do consider the DCA.

DCA are still worse in this edition than in 5th, even with power axes. So what is there to consider? You act like the 'buff' makes them too good, when in reality they are worse than before.

insaniak wrote:

Therion wrote:Now the only room for debate is whether I think modelling for advantage is acceptable or not.

It's really not that simple. Because under your broad definition of modelling for advantage, any weapon swap from whatever the model is supplied with is modelling for advantage. If I buy one of GW's old metal special weapons marines with a plasma gun, and I swap that plasma gun for a melta because I think meltas are better, then by your broad definition that is modelling for advantage and therefore the model is illegal...

The game rules for the model do not change by changing the model.

It's still a basic marine that gets a flamer for +5, a melta for +10 and a plasma gun for +15. Numbers made up. All those are fine in the rules, you can cut off that arm as often as you want - or magnetize it. It didn't get better or worse because of your modeling, but because of your army choice.

Only by converting or scratch building you are ever allowed to use axes on a DCA. You are not told to pick any of the power weapons and then follow WYSIWYG. If it did that, we wouldn't be having an argument. You are told to use the weapon on the model, thus you get an advantage by modeling, not by army choice.

Well, lots of units gain advantages when rules changes come about.

When 5th edition came around, Deffrollas could now hit vehicles with d6 S10 hits! That was a huge buff, with no added cost or downside.

Rules change around codices. Did GW intend DCA to gain their choice of power weapon? Probably not. Is it unprecedented, gamebreaking, or illogical? Nope.

I am now wondering how some people manage to put any model together without getting any advantage out of it.
Then I am wondering what kind of person insisted that this was done.
Those models must look AWFUL.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

Wait. So its ok if I convert the axe?
Why is it not converting to cut the arm off of the existing model and CONVERT it to use an axe?
You entirely lost me with that backtracking.

Joe Mama wrote:

Jidmah wrote:If models exists for a unit, and it does not have the option for one of the power-weapons, it can not use them.

This isn't in the rules. You just made this up. In 6th, if you see the phrase "power weapon" in a codex then what kind of "power weapon" is it? What's your answer to this question? Please answer and then read on...

I look at the model. So I get a Citadel Crusader or a Citadel Death Cult Assassin. All variants of them are using swords.

Jidmah wrote:I look at the model. So I get a Citadel Crusader or a Citadel Death Cult Assassin.

That is not the model you are supposed to look at.
The one with the axe is the one we are talking about.

Not be nitpicky...

But the rule says "look at the model."

What model?

Even for DCAs, there are two models.

Isn't that strong evidence that they mean, "the actual model in play," and not "the official model?"

Space marine captains alone have to have two dozen official models.

If I take a space marine librarian, do I look at the model on the website? Or the one on the table?

Jidmah wrote:The game rules for the model do not change by changing the model.

With the case of power weapons, the new rulebook explictly says they DO. "Power Weapon" is a category, and you see which specific type of power weapon from that category is found on the model on the table. That's what the rulebook says. So if your model comes with a power weapon standard, or you have to buy one, the type depends on what it looks like. Do you disagree?

There's modeling for advantage and modeling a wargear entry.

Christ, why is this such a difficult thing to grasp:

all of your firewarriors greenstuffed into kneeling positions -> MFA

Making a power weapon into either a sword, axe, or maul (two of the previous in terms of DCA) -> modeling an option.

MFA implies douchebaggery is afoot. Given that the rules give, with open arms, this option to you; given that DCA love death and dealing death and murdering things; I cannot fathom how you think someone taking a DCA and adding an axe would be MFA.

Jidmah wrote:I look at the model. So I get a Citadel Crusader or a Citadel Death Cult Assassin. All variants of them are using swords.

The model on the table? According to this thread the won't be using swords.

If you're referencing GW's pictures - show me a current warrior with boneswords before they were released.

So basically the thread boils down to two sides.

One side wants to allow the swapping of power weapons as it says you can in the rules as long as the model represents the weapon.

The other side a bunch of TFGs that don't want to change their mind or admit they are wrong.

And Im only saying that because you have offered no logical reason on why they can't do it other than you don't like it.

If you are worried about your Termies that bad

That's a problem with these threads. There are a few people who are trying to find the correct interpretation of the rules just for the sake of truth, purity of the game system, helping other people out or whatever. Then there are people with agendas -- People who want to do something dodgy but want to get some validation from atleast a few peers on the internet before doing so. Sometimes in the argument against them are their very opponents -- People who have an agenda on that advantage being disallowed.

The only 40K army that I play now has nothing but masses of flyers and infantry models with a 3+ save and mostly worse so all I've said is from an objective view.

That is not the model you are supposed to check.

If you're implying that he should check the custom miniature you modeled to have an axe and gained an advantage because of it I'm curious to know what your point is. Likewise, many of you constantly keep ignoring Jidmah's questions regarding the slippery slope. Where does it end? Is there an extent to modelling for advantage that you don't allow? You allow only slight modeling for advantage? More specifically, do you only allow modeling for advantage when you do it yourself?

Polonius wrote:Not be nitpicky...

But the rule says "look at the model."

What model?

Even for DCAs, there are two models.

Also, even if there is only one official model, what if the official model isn't around? What if you only have a picture? That doesn't count, because a picture is not the thing in the picture.

kirsanth wrote:I am now wondering how some people manage to put any model together without getting any advantage out of it.
Then I am wondering what kind of person insisted that this was done.
Those models must look AWFUL.

It's pretty easy. They come with a manual. Made by Citadel.

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

Wait. So its ok if I convert the axe?
Why is it not converting to cut the arm off of the existing model and CONVERT it to use an axe?
You entirely lost me with that backtracking.

You are trolling, right?

If you are not converting or scratchbuilding, you can't get an axe.
So if you're converting or scratchbuilding to get an axe, you are modeling for advantage.

Unlike tervigons, TWC or whatever other stuff people keep coughing up. You can get those because they are in your codex, not because GW told you that your marines have special rules if they look like riding on wolves.

For me this is just turning into an "Exalt Polonius" thread.

I'm sorry Jidmah, but I just can't agree with you even while I understand you. Would you play someone who uses wyches as Death Cult models? I'm just curious.

Creating a model that represents the wargear and weaponry is part of the rules, not an advantage - it is actually required.

If you are choosing things because they are advantageous, you are being smart, not a cheater.

Therion, do you let your opponent choose your wargear/weapons and then model your army? Otherwise, you are literally modeling to get an advantage.

Jidmah wrote:Unlike tervigons, TWC or whatever other stuff people keep coughing up. You can get those because they are in your codex, not because GW told you that your marines have special rules if they look like riding on wolves.

So a codex that has power weapons cannot equip a specific version of a power weapon?

How about the SoB FAQ? It says to change references to a 'Power Sword' to 'Power Weapon'. The DCA have a Power Sword.

If it meant for models that had bits according to the appropriate Power Weapon type, why change that phrase then? DCA have Power Swords, according by definition, yet they change it to 'Power Weapon' in ALL references within the Codex.

Why not just keep it 'Power Sword' then if we're going off the assumption that this rule pertains to bits exclusive to particular kits?

Perhaps I'm missing something, but to me the wording is almost too straightforward; and I'll treat it as such. If they meant for the kits with the specific bits to have this advantage, I would have imagined they would have directly said so; since they haven't, I assume all references of 'Power Weapon' means I can select from the general/common selection of Power Weapons wherever Power 'Insert Type Here' is provided.

Yes, it can be giving advantages, such as allowing Lychguard to take 'Hyperphase Axes' according by definition, but until it is FAQ'd, or said otherwise by the BRB...I'll treat it as it says, and it doesn't mention 'bitz' or anything of the sort.

My 2 cents.

Would you play someone who uses wyches as Death Cult models

You can use blobs of green stuff for all I care but when combat starts your blobs of green stuff count as Death Cult Assassins with two power swords each.

Destrado wrote:For me this is just turning into an "Exalt Polonius" thread.

You too?

I still don't see a rules problem with modelling anything with a power weapon as you see fit.

I can see the argument being made now.

basically, power weapons are WYSIWYG. The argument is that any attempt to broaden the range of options with conversion is adding an option (because uniquely for power weapons model choice is also rules choice).

So, because DCAs have never had a model with axes, any conversion with axes, while strictly legal, are only possible due to modelling, and not purely codex rules.

Most people are shrugging their shoulders and going, "cool, new options." This seems to show that while it is gaining a new advantage simply because of modelling, the rules seem very ok with it, given the long history of conversions.

Therion wrote: Is there an extent to modelling for advantage that you don't allow? You allow only slight modeling for advantage?

Doing WYSIWYG to properly show the legal wargear is not technically *scare quotes* "modeling for advantage." It is using the rules and showing your opponent what the model is legally equipped with. If my dude has a gun, you look to see which one. If my dude has a meltagun, well you are going to see the melta gun. If he has a kind of power weapon, you look at the model to see which kind, as the rules state. To argue otherwise to argue for the broadest, most absurd definition of "modeling for advantage" that one could possible make.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CleverAntics wrote:How about the SoB FAQ? It says to change references to a 'Power Sword' to 'Power Weapon'. The DCA have a Power Sword.

Nope. DCA have power weapons (at least in the GK dex they do).

Therion wrote:
You can use blobs of green stuff for all I care but when combat starts your blobs of green stuff count as Death Cult Assassins with two power swords each.

Because?

(@ kirsanth: guess he's not a lawyer for nothing )

kirsanth wrote:Creating a model that represents the wargear and weaponry is part of the rules, not an advantage - it is actually required.

If you are choosing things because they are advantageous, you are being smart, not a cheater.

Therion, do you let your opponent choose your wargear/weapons and then model your army? Otherwise, you are literally modeling to get an advantage.

Quoted For Truth!

I am shocked and awed and amazed and a little sad that people don't seem to understand this.

Could the people that are arguing against this answer something, when it says to reference THE model which one do I have to reference if there is more than 1 official model, like in the case of DCA?

Therion wrote:
People who want to do something dodgy but want to get some validation from atleast a few peers on the internet before doing so. Sometimes in the argument against them are their very opponents -- People who have an agenda on that advantage being disallowed.

Have you read either the BYB or the new FAQs because your statement right there leads me to believe you have done neither. If, IF IF IF IF IF, the 'power sword' entry for the DCA is FAQ'd to a 'power weapon' or if it started as a 'power weapon' to begin with, you can make it a sword/maul/axe and that's what is represented on the table.

If you want to be AP4 and +2 strength with no two weapon bonus, I would love to see that (with my sword wielding sergeant). If you want to be S+1 and AP2 at I1, again, I would love to see that (as would my sword wielding sergeant).

That's the RAW currently. You can think that someone who chooses an axe over a sword is MFA or TFG, step back for a sec and think about what that's actually doing. If its a character, he can be challenged and executed prior to his initiative step. If it isn't a character, said unit got a buff in terms of choices in combat (until power axes and power swords are FAQ'd as not being usable together).

Polonius wrote:Not be nitpicky...

But the rule says "look at the model."

What model?

Even for DCAs, there are two models.

As we have instituted, one of them is illegal.

Isn't that strong evidence that they mean, "the actual model in play," and not "the official model?"

Space marine captains alone have to have two dozen official models.

So do big meks and warbosses. All of those are Citadel Miniatures made by GW.

If I take a space marine librarian, do I look at the model on the website? Or the one on the table?

Assuming you followed the assembly instructions, they should look similar. If you added bits from a captain, that's no longer a Citadel Librarian.

Joe Mama wrote:

Jidmah wrote:The game rules for the model do not change by changing the model.

With the case of power weapons, the new rulebook explictly says they DO. "Power Weapon" is a category, and you see which specific type of power weapon from that category is found on the model on the table. That's what the rulebook says. So if your model comes with a power weapon standard, or you have to buy one, the type depends on what it looks like. Do you disagree?

So how did you get that model? Correct, by MFA.
Just like I modeled my ork's eyes 5" ft above him. The rulebook tells me to look through his eyes.

Jidmah wrote:The game rules for the model do not change by changing the model.

You realise that's the exact argument being made by those who think that changing the DCA's weapons is legal, right?

I'm still waiting on the answer regarding other models we don't like. We don't like the official Death Cult Assassins, that's been established quite clearly. We don't like them aesthetically and we don't like the fact that they're holding power swords.

What if we don't like Land Raiders? What can we do about that? Can we scratch build ones we do like from GW bitz, like we scratch built/converted some Death Cult Assassins? It will still have armour 14 and the same weapons and cost the same amount of points, but it will look very different and the guns might not all be where you expected them to be.

I used to play Imperial Guard. I hated the fact my Vendettas were so god damn big and couldn't fit on the table with a 6 inch move when coming from reserve. What could I have done about that?

Therion wrote:I'm still waiting on the answer regarding other models we don't like..

Start another thread.

This one is about why it is ok to use every option listed in your codex and the main rule book - specifically power weapons.
Which it is.

As long as weapons have similar firing arcs/height/distance from each other then it shouldn't be a problem.

But if you're a jerk and put all the weapons on one side and play with it up to a corner, then you are an ass.

Start another thread.

You are trolling. My question is relevant. I suspect you're ignoring it because you know the examples are analogous and don't like the answer.

As long as weapons have similar firing arcs/height/distance from each other then it shouldn't be a problem.

Page reference? Why are any of those things you mentioned a requirement?

But if you're a jerk and put all the weapons on one side and play with it up to a corner, then you are an ass.

Just like the guy who didn't like the power swords, and decided to do something about it...

You know, arguments like the power weapon can of worms are a great justification for banning conversions altogether. Privateer Press is onto something, I feel. Especially for tournaments, maybe models should be limited to what comes in the box, no more and no less. If there's no model of a unit, tough, you can't have one. We wouldn't want anyone to model for advantage, would we?

Just a modest proposal for the benefit of unambiguous rules and less arguments.

Jidmah wrote:So how did you get that model? Correct, by MFA.

So having a model comply with WYSIWYG is MFA now?


How do I get my Grey Hunter with a melta gun. I build the model with a melta gun. MFA.
How do I get my Wolf Guard with a power fist. I build the model with a power fist. MFA.
How do I get my Wolf Guard a (free) bolter. I build the model with a bolter. MFA.
How do I get my GK Crusader with a Category: Power Weapon, Type: Axe? I follow the WYSIWYG rules yet again and model the Crusader with an axe. MFA.

Jidmah wrote:As we have instituted, one of them is illegal.

Assuming you followed the assembly instructions, they should look similar. If you added bits from a captain, that's no longer a Citadel Librarian.

So, you're arguing that even using an officail GW model would be illegal? I mean, if this is an interesting though exercise, I guess good on you.

As for conversion, I think you're going to gain little traction with your stance that even a simple conversion makes a model no longer citadel, for reasons I've articulated.

Hm, let the records show my inability to reflect back on the SoB Codex reveals that, yes, the DCA have 2 Power Weapons; my mistake.

But it still makes me think; the Canoness can have a Power Sword, which apparently has been made to 'Power Weapon'. The Canoness DOES NOT come with a Power Weapon of any sorts after looking at it on GW. This would make the argue that bit specific kits is referenced for the purpose of particular Power Weapons invalid.

However, I don't own such a model and I don't know what it comes with. Anyone feel free to correct me and prove my point incorrect; I'm indifferent either way.

Jidman, As we have instituted, one of them is illegal. is probably one of the most unsupported by reality, hard line statements I have ever seen on Dakka, let alone YMTC.

How are you doing this? How are you able to compartmentalize away every modeling article and bitz box upgrade package every put out by the company?

Therion wrote:This is trolling.

Don't do that, it's mean.

It has been said that converting is ok.
Do you know what "converting" means in addition to "modeling" and "advantage?"

The GK codex lists them as having power weapons.

The rulebook states, on page 61 that you look at "the" model to figure out what weapon it has. If you converted it, then you have something different. You are given permission to convert models provided you did not edit them for an advantage.

An example would be modifying a GK dreadnought so it's autocannon arms are higher.

The only bonus you get for changing the weapons on a model in this case is to comply with WYSIWYG, and in this case you are told to refer to the model to see what weapons it has.

Now as to if you can have two different power weapons, it doesn't say you can't, not does it say you can. Personally I like the feel of power spears and axes, one to stab them in place, another to lop the head off.

Jidmah wrote:
The game rules for the model do not change by changing the model.

They do. They always have. Games Workshop have time and time again released a model then made rules to suit it.

I use crusaders in a small Sisters force. I don't use the official model I use an Adeptus Arbite. Thanks to the new rules it's now armed with a more appropriate power maul. The FAQ even says to change all references of power swords to power weapons. The power weapons are grouped together as they are considered equally balanced, it allows creativity and saves space in the codecs. GW allows 'count as', rebel grots counting as imperial guard as the classic example. They indeed encourage you to change and customise their models. The rules now suit this perfectly.

This is a hobby that allows you to be creative. The rules allow this more than ever now.

The background of the death cults say there are hundreds of different cults, all with different teachings and practises. Now the variety can be represented. I also seem to remember the 2 official models being based on named characters, neither are WYSIWYG (knives on one, not even power knives, and a single sword on the other).

Therion wrote:I'm still waiting on the answer regarding other models we don't like. We don't like the official Death Cult Assassins, that's been established quite clearly. We don't like them aesthetically and we don't like the fact that they're holding power swords.

What if we don't like Land Raiders? What can we do about that? Can we scratch build ones we do like from GW bitz, like we scratch built/converted some Death Cult Assassins? It will still have armour 14 and the same weapons and cost the same amount of points, but it will look very different and the guns might not all be where you expected them to be.

I used to play Imperial Guard. I hated the fact my Vendettas were so god damn big and couldn't fit on the table with a 6 inch move when coming from reserve. What could I have done about that?

Yes. You absolutely can scratchbuild any of those options. There's nothing - not a single rule - saying you can't.

The farther you stray from "standard" the fewer opponents you'll find.

This. Isn't. New.

Destrado wrote:For me this is just turning into an "Exalt Polonius" thread.

I'm sorry Jidmah, but I just can't agree with you even while I understand you. Would you play someone who uses wyches as Death Cult models? I'm just curious.

Sure, as long as you're using them as swords.
Just like I use all my conversions as if they were the original model, be it old trukks(acting as tall as new trukks), kopta-buggies(counting as having the same outline as GW buggies) or the ram+deff rolla battlewagons (counting as being slightly shorter, like the official ones).
If you like wyches with axes because of aesthetics, there shouldn't be a problem to have them count as swords, right?

insaniak wrote:

Jidmah wrote:The game rules for the model do not change by changing the model.

You realise that's the exact argument being made by those who think that changing the DCA's weapons is legal, right?

Except that models have no inherited permission to use weapons they don't come with.

The rule simply does not say "powerweapon? pick one!". It tells you to look at the model. Common sense also tells you to not look at a chaos terminator with a chain axe when asked to look at a death-cult assassin.

Jidmah wrote:The rule simply does not say "powerweapon? pick one!". It tells you to look at the model. Common sense also tells you to not look at a chaos terminator with a chain axe when asked to look at a death-cult assassin.

It would also make sense to look at the model in question instead of an arbitrary one from the internet, but I do not read you suggesting THAT.

what about Forge world models.

because currently all my Hydra's are MFA. ( i guess?)

RegulusBlack wrote:what about Forge world models.

because currently all my Hydra's are MFA. ( i guess?)

The head on one of my gants does not match the image from the instructions. MFA!

juraigamer wrote:The rulebook states, on page 61 that you look at "the" model to figure out what weapon it has. If you converted it, then you have something different. You are given permission to convert models provided you did not edit them for an advantage.

This restriction is impossible to follow in practice, I would argue. Anything can be an advantage, so by that yardstick, everything must be considered to be such. If you want to start splitting hairs, then converting cannot remain legal per the rules.

Therion wrote:I'm still waiting on the answer regarding other models we don't like. We don't like the official Death Cult Assassins, that's been established quite clearly. We don't like them aesthetically and we don't like the fact that they're holding power swords.

What if we don't like Land Raiders? What can we do about that? Can we scratch build ones we do like from GW bitz, like we scratch built/converted some Death Cult Assassins? It will still have armour 14 and the same weapons and cost the same amount of points, but it will look very different and the guns might not all be where you expected them to be.

I used to play Imperial Guard. I hated the fact my Vendettas were so god damn big and couldn't fit on the table with a 6 inch move when coming from reserve. What could I have done about that?

Well, I guess people have been ducking this the same way you and Jidmah have been ducking the questions about the semantic hypertechincal correctness behind MFA.

The rule against MFA has always been about unfair advantage. That your model should behave like other models using the same rules. As fire arcs, line of sight, physical dimensions, access ports, etc. all are factors into the rules for a unit, models shouldn't devait too far, so as not to gain unfair advantage.

so, there is a continuum of modelling, from selecting the melta gun from the tactical squad box instead of a bolter, all the way up to representing vendettas with a single scarab on a 25mm base. Somewhere along that continuum is using early edition rhino hulls. And somewhere along there is the DCA.

The problem is that the rules and tradition strongly suggest that scarab sized vendettas are improper, and strongly suggest that selecting a melta gun in a tactical squad is proper.

Quite simply, showing that soemthing is modelling for advantage is not enough. You need to show that it is, or should be, improper.

Jidmah wrote:Except that models have no inherited permission to use weapons they don't come with.

What weapons do DCA come with? The codex says two 'power weapons'. What does that term mean in 6th edition? Does it mean something specific, or general? I await your answer.

Meh, can't you guys like elect a representative?

It's getting hard to answer all of you.

Jidmah wrote:Meh, can't you guys like elect a representative?

It's getting hard to answer all of you.

Respond to 6 people in one post, this will limit the replies you get since you'll take longer to post each time.

What weapons do DCA come with? It says two 'power weapons'. What does that term mean in 6th edition? Does it mean something specific, or general? I await your answer.

I want a Land Raider in my army. Does that mean something specific modelling wise, or general? I await your answer.

Therion wrote:I want a Land Raider in my army. Does that mean something specific modelling wise, or general? I await your answer.

Check your codex for the options available, then model them.

Note:
This may require referencing other sources - like the rulebook - since some options are (further) explained there.

Therion wrote:

What weapons do DCA come with? It says two 'power weapons'. What does that term mean in 6th edition? Does it mean something specific, or general? I await your answer.

I want a Land Raider in my army. Does that mean something specific modelling wise, or general? I await your answer.

How about you answer my question first, if you can and then I will deal with yours. What does the term 'power weapon' mean in 6th edition? You seem to be stuck in a 5th edition mindset...

Therion wrote:

What weapons do DCA come with? It says two 'power weapons'. What does that term mean in 6th edition? Does it mean something specific, or general? I await your answer.

I want a Land Raider in my army. Does that mean something specific modelling wise, or general? I await your answer.

It does. It means a model with the exact dimensions, fire arcs and footprint of the Games Workshop plastic kit. It does not need to be one, of course. A wood, plastic or cardboard facsimile would be acceptable provided all the criteria were met. Nothing else would be fair.

Check your codex for the options available, then model them.

What options? It only says 'Land Raider' and then some pictures. I don't like the pictures. I like this one:

Can this be my Land Raider? Don't worry, I will attach all the proper weapons to it before I use it.

Therion wrote:

What weapons do DCA come with? It says two 'power weapons'. What does that term mean in 6th edition? Does it mean something specific, or general? I await your answer.

I want a Land Raider in my army. Does that mean something specific modelling wise, or general? I await your answer.

It depends - there's multiple variants of a Land Raider. Those variants have specific options.
"Power weapon" is not a specific option.

Jidmah wrote:Meh, can't you guys like elect a representative?

It's getting hard to answer all of you.

That the argument went from multitude for: 5 against to multitude plus 4 for: 1 against should tell you something.

Therion wrote:

Check your codex for the options available, then model them.

What options? It only says 'Land Raider' and then some pictures.

Then that is not a codex option. That is the words "Land Raider"

jgehunter wrote:Could the people that are arguing against this answer something, when it says to reference THE model which one do I have to reference if there is more than 1 official model, like in the case of DCA?

IMHO 'the model' means the model in play, which would have to comply with the rules of that model in the codex.

A codex gives a unit a 'power weapon'
The rulebook states a power weapon can be a sword, axe, maul or lance. To see which one it is you would have to look at the model being used, specially what weapon its carrying.

As the codex and rulebook allow 4 options, all 4 are legal options to give to your model.

Jidmah: stating that if a model isn't released by GW with a certain weapon type its not allowed to take that weapon is just nonsense... Whether or not a model is allowed to wield any weapon depends solely on the rules applicable, which would be the codex and the rulebook. I don't care if GW released DCA's with two peashooters, and someone gave them a sword and an axe, if the codex allows is its perfectly legal!

Calling this MFA is the same as saying upgrading a bolt pistol to a meltagun is MFA... Its not a weaponchoice you have to pay for (like the meltagun) but the rules allow it... It may be an oversight in the case of DCA's being able to bring 2 types of weapons, it seems to be a perfectly legal option. I just really don't see how this could be so difficult to grasp

The discussion seems to resolve around DCA's, but the same logic applies to any model that can take 'a power weapon'. In 5th that meant an axe or sword or whatever you fancy, in 6th you get more options to customize the models statline. Seems brilliant to me

Agamemnon2 wrote:[This restriction is impossible to follow in practice, I would argue. Anything can be an advantage, so by that yardstick, everything must be considered to be such. If you want to start splitting hairs, then converting cannot remain legal per the rules.

This is a very true statement.

Clearly, MFA is oftena fact intensive, and inherently subjective question. It's based on the twin virtues of creativity and fairplay.

the problem with limiting a current units weapon options to the actual models produced is that there's a lot of fuzziness with the terms "offical model."

Is the space marine veteran with mace model a Veteran with power maul, Veteran with CCW, or can he also be a sargeant with power maul? What about OOP models? Limited editions? What about kits clearly meant to go together, but aren't packaged togehter (tactical and assault squad sprues?).

Reading the words "range of current Citadel models for that specific unit" into the word "model" is a lot.

Ok i have question about this one. If we allow our DCA's to have an axe and sword. Neither of these have the Specialist Weapon rule. Do you lose your +1 attack for 2 CCW's?

Guys he is dodging the actual question by bringing up Land Raiders. Don't let his tactic work.

Joe Mama wrote:How do I get my GK Crusader with a Category: Power Weapon, Type: Axe?

You don't. Simply as that. When building an army you can only get a GK Crusader with a power weapon.
Both Models for GK Crusaders with powerweapons have swords.
Thus, all GK Crusaders you field will be using the rules for swords.

It doesn't work the other way around.

Slackermagee wrote:That the argument went from multitude for: 5 against to multitude plus 4 for: 1 against should tell you something.

Yes, it sounds awfully like you're essentially just browbeating him. "How dare you hold an opinion that's not shared by everyone!"

grendel083 wrote:

Jidmah wrote:
The game rules for the model do not change by changing the model.

They do. They always have. Games Workshop have time and time again released a model then made rules to suit it.

I use crusaders in a small Sisters force. I don't use the official model I use an Adeptus Arbite. Thanks to the new rules it's now armed with a more appropriate power maul. The FAQ even says to change all references of power swords to power weapons. The power weapons are grouped together as they are considered equally balanced, it allows creativity and saves space in the codecs. GW allows 'count as', rebel grots counting as imperial guard as the classic example. They indeed encourage you to change and customise their models. The rules now suit this perfectly.

This is a hobby that allows you to be creative. The rules allow this more than ever now.

The background of the death cults say there are hundreds of different cults, all with different teachings and practises. Now the variety can be represented. I also seem to remember the 2 official models being based on named characters, neither are WYSIWYG (knives on one, not even power knives, and a single sword on the other).

None of those conversions change your army's rules though. Putting axes on a model always described and shown as using swords does.

My group has a very liberal proxying policy, I fully expect (in fact, I know) that TFG's power weapons will all become mauls vs deamons(sup my DC are wounding your bloodthirster on 4s and still striking at I4), and axes vs GK.
This is actually the one aspect of the new rules I don't like

Bikeninja wrote:Ok i have question about this one. If we allow our DCA's to have an axe and sword. Neither of these have the Specialist Weapon rule. Do you lose your +1 attack for 2 CCW's?

Most of the impetus for this thread came from the predication that you would get the +1 attack at either the model's initiative or at initiative 1 with +1 strength.

Polonius wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote:[This restriction is impossible to follow in practice, I would argue. Anything can be an advantage, so by that yardstick, everything must be considered to be such. If you want to start splitting hairs, then converting cannot remain legal per the rules.

This is a very true statement.

Clearly, MFA is oftena fact intensive, and inherently subjective question. It's based on the twin virtues of creativity and fairplay.

the problem with limiting a current units weapon options to the actual models produced is that there's a lot of fuzziness with the terms "offical model."

Is the space marine veteran with mace model a Veteran with power maul, Veteran with CCW, or can he also be a sargeant with power maul? What about OOP models? Limited editions? What about kits clearly meant to go together, but aren't packaged togehter (tactical and assault squad sprues?).

Reading the words "range of current Citadel models for that specific unit" into the word "model" is a lot.

"What a strange game. The only winning move is not to play."

Jidmah wrote:None of those conversions change your army's rules though. Putting axes on a model always described and shown as using swords does.

Neither does having a power weapon. Those include power swords, power axes, power mauls, and special power weapons.

The term is "subcategory".

Jidmah wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:How do I get my GK Crusader with a Category: Power Weapon, Type: Axe?

You don't. Simply as that. When building an army you can only get a GK Crusader with a power weapon.

WHAT IS A POWER WEAPON IN 6TH EDITION?

Agamemnon2 wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:That the argument went from multitude for: 5 against to multitude plus 4 for: 1 against should tell you something.

Yes, it sounds awfully like you're essentially just browbeating him. "How dare you hold an opinion that's not shared by everyone!"

I intended it more as, "Look at the 4 people who came to Jesus, look who's left!"

I mean, c'mon, when an argument has to rest on 'certain GW models are illegal' to survive...

Slackermagee wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:That the argument went from multitude for: 5 against to multitude plus 4 for: 1 against should tell you something.

Yes, it sounds awfully like you're essentially just browbeating him. "How dare you hold an opinion that's not shared by everyone!"

I intended it more as, "Look at the 4 people who came to Jesus, look who's left!"

I mean, c'mon, when an argument has to rest on 'certain GW models are illegal' to survive...

Well. . . he is right.
Of course that does not mean you are wrong.


At this point I have a hard time imagining they are serious; thus my flippant remarks.

Jidmah wrote:

grendel083 wrote:

Jidmah wrote:
The game rules for the model do not change by changing the model.

They do. They always have. Games Workshop have time and time again released a model then made rules to suit it.

I use crusaders in a small Sisters force. I don't use the official model I use an Adeptus Arbite. Thanks to the new rules it's now armed with a more appropriate power maul. The FAQ even says to change all references of power swords to power weapons. The power weapons are grouped together as they are considered equally balanced, it allows creativity and saves space in the codecs. GW allows 'count as', rebel grots counting as imperial guard as the classic example. They indeed encourage you to change and customise their models. The rules now suit this perfectly.

This is a hobby that allows you to be creative. The rules allow this more than ever now.

The background of the death cults say there are hundreds of different cults, all with different teachings and practises. Now the variety can be represented. I also seem to remember the 2 official models being based on named characters, neither are WYSIWYG (knives on one, not even power knives, and a single sword on the other).

None of those conversions change your army's rules though. Putting axes on a model always described and shown as using swords does.

Well, THANK GOD the FAQ and codex entry now describes them as having power weapons which in turn now have three possibilities that can be modeled. Are we done yet?

Jidmah wrote:None of those conversions change your army's rules though. Putting axes on a model always described and shown as using swords does.

Well, you're making the assumption that GW meant "look at the model, which should be modeled exactly like a model we've made, and see what it's armed with." It's possible, to be sure. It's equally likely they meant, "look at the model, which you can do up however you'd like, and see what it's armed with."

Still, even if I concede that it's modelling for advantage, is that improper? And if so, why is it unfair?

I suppose the argument you'd make is "you shouldn't gain rules by changing a model," to which I'd respond with "you shouldn't lose options because GW hasn't made that model yet."

I think he is trolling at this point. No person can have the opinion that it's wrong to add in a legal war gear option that is not included with the model, but okay with a model being completely scratch built but not officially released.

Your arguments have no logic, reason, or merit, they are the rumblings of a madman. Please stop using English because I hate understanding what you write,

I think I'm going to have to start quoting Polonius.

You're comparing a weapon change on a model, that doesn't give it an advantage but rather an option, to proxying a Land Raider with a Grot on Tracks?

Are you really trying to make a point?

Joe Mama wrote:

Jidmah wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:How do I get my GK Crusader with a Category: Power Weapon, Type: Axe?

You don't. Simply as that. When building an army you can only get a GK Crusader with a power weapon.

WHAT IS A POWER WEAPON IN 6TH EDITION?

The thing your crusader is wielding.
That's not a sword? Then that's not a crusader.

I see this turning into stats and benefits over modelling, im dreading turning up at the GW and seeing decent stock miniatures with all there weapons cut off and ugly ass replacements plastered all over them ~>~

Bikeninja wrote:Ok i have question about this one. If we allow our DCA's to have an axe and sword. Neither of these have the Specialist Weapon rule. Do you lose your +1 attack for 2 CCW's?

That actually may be right. It certainly would seem like the fair and logical middle ground supported by the ruleset.. In which case, I would argue giving up a bonus attack is worth the tactifcal flexibilty 1 of each provides.

Savageconvoy wrote:I think he is trolling at this point. No person can have the opinion that it's wrong to add in a legal war gear option that is not included with the model, but okay with a model being completely scratch built but not officially released.

Your arguments have no logic, reason, or merit, they are the rumblings of a madman. Please stop using English because I hate understanding what you write,

Destrado wrote:I think I'm going to have to start quoting Polonius.

You're comparing a weapon change on a model, that doesn't give it an advantage but rather an option, to proxying a Land Raider with a Grot on Tracks?

Are you really trying to make a point?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think I'm going to have to start quoting Polonius.

You're comparing a weapon change on a model, that doesn't give it an advantage but rather an option, to proxying a Land Raider with a Grot on Tracks?

Are you really trying to make a point?

You are both assuming that switching powerweapons freely is legal.

That's not what the rule you keep misquoting says.

Savageconvoy wrote:I think he is trolling at this point. No person can have the opinion that it's wrong to add in a legal war gear option that is not included with the model, but okay with a model being completely scratch built but not officially released.

Pretty sure you're right there

One wonders why the hell GW made this change to begin with. They could have just universally nerfed all power weapons into AP3 and be done with it. It would have been preferable to what we have here now.

Jidmah wrote:Except that models have no inherited permission to use weapons they don't come with.

Of course they do. They have permission to use any weapon allowed by their army list entry.

Your narrow interpretation of this leaves Grey Hunters being illegal if they have Plasma guns or flamers, and Tactical squads illegal if they have any heavy weapon other than a missile launcher.

Jidmah wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:

Jidmah wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:How do I get my GK Crusader with a Category: Power Weapon, Type: Axe?

You don't. Simply as that. When building an army you can only get a GK Crusader with a power weapon.

WHAT IS A POWER WEAPON IN 6TH EDITION?

The thing your crusader is wielding.

Good for you! Correct! And that all depends on which legal 'thing' he is wielding (sword, stave, maul, halberd / axe)

That's not a sword? Then that's not a crusader.

I spoke too soon! Why does a crusader, who has an option for the category of "power weapon" have to be modeled with a power sword, which is only one of several options within the category of 'power weapon'? Please try to say something other than "because I say so".

Jidmah wrote:You are both assuming that switching powerweapons freely is legal.

That's not what the rule you keep misquoting says.

You are still wrong.
That rule says to look at the model.
Does the model have an ax?
The model has an ax.

The only problem occurs if that ax is not an option in the codex.

Note:
Power weapon allows for an axe to be used - as an ax.


Appendix 1:
How do you deal with people that magnetize?
Appendix 2:
Or convert?

He's in no way trolling. He's acting as a representative of everyone who likes to play according to the rules and detests modelling for advantage. The only reason he has to post so much is because dozens of Grey Knight players keep making strawmen and misquoting rules and are generally flaming him for being right.

Thunderfrog wrote:

Bikeninja wrote:Ok i have question about this one. If we allow our DCA's to have an axe and sword. Neither of these have the Specialist Weapon rule. Do you lose your +1 attack for 2 CCW's?

That actually may be right. It certainly would seem like the fair and logical middle ground supported by the ruleset.. In which case, I would argue giving up a bonus attack is worth the tactifcal flexibilty 1 of each provides.

Could be completely wrong here... but I thought two different CCWs without the Specialist weapon rule give a bonus attack. I thought the Specialist Weapon rule means you have to have two of the same Specialist Weapon in order to get a bonus attack. For example, one Lightning Claw and a pistol don't give you an extra attack, because the LC is a specialist weapon.

Therion wrote:He's in no way trolling. He's acting as a representative of everyone who likes to play according to the rules and detests modelling for advantage. The only reason he has to post so much is because dozens of Grey Knight players keep making strawmen, misquoting rules and generally flaming him for being right.

This discussion is in no way Grey Knights who want OP DCA on one side, vs the rest
The rules problem applies to all the models that can have a 'power weapon'

his argument is basically that when a model released by GW has a certain weapon option, where the codex allows several, it is illegal to convert that model to another weapons option. Preposterous

We shouldn't assume that somebody that strongly holds an opinion that you don't agree with is trolling.

A lot of internet (and in person) friction is due to absolutism, or black/white thinking. It's not horribly rare. Basically it's a difficulty in seeing both the good and bad in something. It often manifests in areas of rules, where they prefer a simple "this is good, this is bad" simple rule.

Of course, most problems are far more complex, with most decisions weiging the relative pros and cons.

So yes, it's possible that person could see this and find it just as moraly problematic as modelling a land raider with a grot tank.

Grey Knight player? I'm a Tau player! I hate Grey Knights! I'm just not going to let illogical people try to make up random rules to prevent people from making legal changes to their army.

Oh no guys. My Crisis suits don't have a piece for vectored retro thrusters, targeting arrays, or iridium armor. Guess those aren't legal options.

weapon option, where the codex allows several,

DCA have no weapon options so I'm not sure what you're talking about. They have two power weapons.

Therion wrote:

weapon option, where the codex allows several,

DCA have no weapon options so I'm not sure what you're talking about. They have two power weapons.

stop thinking in the 5th mindset. power weapon doesn't just mean a power sword anymore! 6th clearly states that a power weapon can also be an axe or maul or lance

Therion wrote:

weapon option, where the codex allows several,

DCA have no weapon options so I'm not sure what you're talking about. They have two power weapons.

How do you not know this yet. 'Power Weapon' is a category in 6th edition, containing several options.

Therion wrote:

weapon option, where the codex allows several,

DCA have no weapon options so I'm not sure what you're talking about. They have two power weapons.

That is now a weapon option. That is the point of this thread.
Power weapon is a category now.

It's like people are arguing about two different games
"I want to buy Park Place!"
"No! You landed on a slide, go down a level."

Requiem wrote:

Savageconvoy wrote:I think he is trolling at this point. No person can have the opinion that it's wrong to add in a legal war gear option that is not included with the model, but okay with a model being completely scratch built but not officially released.

Pretty sure you're right there

No one has proven that putting axes on DCA is actually allowed.

Models made by GW do not have axes. Thus you can not use power axes when simply buying your GK army from GW and build them as intended. Just like battlewagon can not use all his big shootaz at once if you build it as intended. Or a landraider can't target all his weapons at a target not directly in front of it. Or, to name something that's not a vehicle, the special Waaagh! banner nob gw released is way taller than all other nobz, making him poke out behind cover a lot. Is it ok to remove the metal body and replace it with a comparably tiny nob body from the boyz box?
You can change the models to make it better on the tabletop, sure. But where do you draw the line?

The only common ground is to use models a GW builds them.

Jidmah wrote:No one has proven that putting axes on DCA is actually allowed.

GW did that for us.
They state that power weapons modeled as an axe are power axes.

Jidmah wrote:The only common ground is to use models a GW builds them.

And when GW doesn't have models available with the legal wargear options? What then? (Also, didn't we go over this already, how can you be going in a circle already?).