came up on the tactics thread but essentially grinds down to:

DCA's have 2 power weapons

power weapons can be - axes, swords, maces, lances

rule book says to use whatever weapon the model is modeled as WYSIWYG essentially

DCA's don't come in the box with other options. Only swords are default on them in the box, either one big one or two smaller ones (more like daggers but w/e)

This can potentially be then said of any unit with a power weapon. Do you get options? Or you use whats in the box?

Point of debate:

Changing the sword for an axe, - is it modeling for advantage or just modeling with wargear options?

Power weapon means every power weapon. This said, the miniatures are mean to be played with the wargear they come, of course, modding is viable, but to a similar line of miniature, if it have a sword, is a sword. You can mod it to another sword, but not an axe.

At least, this is how I see it.

If the miniature bring an axe and a sword in the blister, it's would be different, but it doesn't.

To me if a unit's entry says it has a power weapon, or power weapons, you should be able to model it with sword, axe, or maul as you see fit.

@DakotaBlue: If miniatures are meant to be played with only with the wargear they come with, then many models will never be able to use potential wargear options since the kits don't come with them. The entry for DCA says that they have two power weapons, giving them the option to use whichever option that they are modelled with. To say that they can not be converted to use an option not included in the kit would be akin to saying that any kit that does not come with every wargear option is limited in the same way.

The entry for DCA says power weapon, not power sword. Other models have been FAQ'd to have a specific type of power weapon. DCA's have not.

If you want a power axe, then model it as an axe.

I would feel differently if GW didn't explicitly encourage people to buy modeling putty and sculpting tools to customize their own models.

You can model them with whatever kind of Power Weapon you want to.

They Simply have 2 power weapons, and those can be any of the 4 listed as power weapons.

Unless of course you are saying that The Blood Angels Death Company are limited to a Power Sword, as that is the only option included on their sprue...

FAQ went out of its way to state replace all instances of "power sword" with "power weapon".

I understand both sides of the argument, but I tend to think that due to the overall change to power weapons, a little remodeling to maintain the unit's effectiveness is not 'modeling for advantage' but modeling for preference.

IF power axes were simply better than swords in every respect, I might take issue with it, but it is a tradeoff - you're losing initiative to gain AP, and since, especially in the case of DCAs, initiative is so important, I'd be fine with an opponent making that change...

That being said, DCAs are modeled to have swords, they don't have wargear options either on their official models or in their entry or fluff (in the GK codex at least). So I can understand reservations players may have about that specific modification.

Overall, any argument for SM sargeants being able to select their power weapon should apply to DCA's with the following exception:: DCA's don't have the physical model for a power axe / lance / maul - but then again, they only have two gakky sculpts that are difficult to repose or resculpt anyway. It's not like GW can be expected to produce every possible variant for every model (combi-meltas anyone?)

If they intended them to only have power swords, then they should have listed their wargear as "power swords" rather than "power weapons". RAW, I really don't see an issue (provided you actually do model it with the respective weapon) and I really can't see it being a 'mistake' on the part of the author with regards to RAI.

Personally, I will feel a little dirty running around with one-axe, one-sword DCA... but it is such an incredibly good benefit, with no drawback, that I can't resist.

Is it modeling for advantage? Sure. But is it grossly gamebreaking modeling for advantage? I don't think so.

I would not lump someone who did this with someone who fields a prone Wraithlord or removes the wings from his Valkyrie. YMMV.

DoW

DogOfWar wrote:Is it modeling for advantage? Sure.

No it is not modelling for advantage.

You are changing a model to give it wargear that it can legally have.

MFA would be modeling the DCA 1/2 inch tall claiming they are midgets then claiming 25% cover for being behind something that is 1/8th inch tall.

helium42 wrote:To me if a unit's entry says it has a power weapon, or power weapons, you should be able to model it with sword, axe, or maul as you see fit.

That's fine, but what rules support your assertion? None.

@DakotaBlue: If miniatures are meant to be played with only with the wargear they come with, then many models will never be able to use potential wargear options since the kits don't come with them. The entry for DCA says that they have two power weapons, giving them the option to use whichever option that they are modelled with. To say that they can not be converted to use an option not included in the kit would be akin to saying that any kit that does not come with every wargear option is limited in the same way.

This is a logical fallacy. All dogs are mammals, not all mammals are dogs.

You may modify any model to give it an option it is legally allowed to take. You may not modify a model if the modification alone provides an advantage.

In the case of power weapons, it is not about giving the model a power weapon, it is altering what weapon it has. This gives you an advantage obtained solely through modeling, and is therefore not allowed.

junk wrote:
IF power axes were simply better than swords in every respect, I might take issue with it, but it is a tradeoff - you're losing initiative to gain AP, and since, especially in the case of DCAs, initiative is so important, I'd be fine with an opponent making that change...

That's a good argument, however, in this case, the proposal is to replace one of the two power swords with an axe, giving the model a clear advantage - being able to pick whichever is situationaly optimal.

DeathReaper wrote:You can model them with whatever kind of Power Weapon you want to.

Cite rulebook?

Unless of course you are saying that The Blood Angels Death Company are limited to a Power Sword, as that is the only option included on their sprue...

Actually, yes, I think that's more than reasonable too. Some kits (Space Wolves) get axes. Some kits (Sisters, Chaos Termies) have power mauls. These reflect the character of these armies.

Blood Angels don't have axes on their sprue - so be it. Although junk's argument that having an axe, not a sword, is a tradeoff rather than a clear-cut advantage has some weight here.

--


I think it is entirely modeling for advantage and it's not difficult logic to follow.

They come with a sword. That's the only model available with that name, and it only has a sword. It would be more advantageous if they had a sword and an axe, because they'd have more options. In order to get them a sword and an axe, you have to alter the model that you can buy. Hence, if you replace one of their swords with an axe, you have gained an advantage through modeling.

To everyone who says that this should be allowed, there is no where in the rules that it says you can alter a model for a competitive advantage. The rules for power weapons don't say put whatever power weapon you want on them, they say "look at the model". Well, the model has swords. That's it. Just swords. All the concept art has just swords. All the fluff has just swords. The Inquisitor scale models have swords. There's no evidence to suggest that they should have anything but swords.

People say putting a model on a different sized base than it came with is advantageous, and this has a far more concrete application that that.

Redbeard wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:You can model them with whatever kind of Power Weapon you want to.

Cite rulebook?

Page 61.

"If a model's wargear says it has a power weapon which has no further special rules, look at the rnodel to tell which type of power weapon it has"

I use the DCA on the right of this Picture:



It only has 1 sword, and is not in itself WYSIWYG, so I have to add a Power Weapon to this model to make it WYSIWYG. I can put on another sword, an Axe, a Maul, or a lance, as per the rules.

Redbeard wrote:Actually, yes, I think that's more than reasonable too. Some kits (Space Wolves) get axes. Some kits (Sisters, Chaos Termies) have power mauls. These reflect the character of these armies.

Assault Squad sergeants get power axes. Tactical Marine Sergeants and Captains don't. How is that reflecting the character of the army?

To everyone who says that this should be allowed, there is no where in the rules that it says you can alter a model for a competitive advantage.

Sure... but you're allowed to select wargear options from the army list. The option for the DCA is a power weapon... and power weapons can be swords, axes or whatever.

The rules for power weapons don't say put whatever power weapon you want on them, they say "look at the model". Well, the model has swords.

One of them has a sword. The other has two knives or short swords that aren't actually powered.

How does it work with Lychguard - they have a 'hyperphase sword' which is a power weapon, can I then give them hyperphase axes?

Phototoxin wrote:How does it work with Lychguard - they have a 'hyperphase sword' which is a power weapon, can I then give them hyperphase axes?

To pre-empt the inevitable; No, the fact it is a Hyperphase Sword is not enough on it's own, or else the Eldritch Lance is erroneously missing the Lance rule from its profile.

As stated in the other thread though, the iBook codex entry for a Hyperphase sword says that it is Strength: As user and AP3, therefore model it however you want, it has a stated profile that you have to use.

Correct me if I am wrong but the DCA models were released well before the 6th edition rules for power weapons, so there was no need to include anything other than swords at the time.

The new rules for power weapons are exactly that, new rules, not 5th edition anymore. They are ap3 and come in 4 variates and effect every army, so everyone has the choice to take which version they want.

They have two power weapons (power weapons can be swords, axes etc) it does not say they both have to be the same type or anything

nohman wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:How does it work with Lychguard - they have a 'hyperphase sword' which is a power weapon, can I then give them hyperphase axes?

To pre-empt the inevitable; No, the fact it is a Hyperphase Sword is not enough on it's own, or else the Eldritch Lance is erroneously missing the Lance rule from its profile.

As stated in the other thread though, the iBook codex entry for a Hyperphase sword says that it is Strength: As user and AP3, therefore model it however you want, it has a stated profile that you have to use.

The ibook has no weight unless they're going to update the FAQ/errata.

tuiman wrote:Correct me if I am wrong but the DCA models were released well before the 6th edition rules for power weapons, so there was no need to include anything other than swords at the time.

True, there was no need.

tuiman wrote:The new rules for power weapons are exactly that, new rules, not 5th edition anymore. They are ap3 and come in 4 variates and effect every army, so everyone has the choice to take which version they want.

They have two power weapons (power weapons can be swords, axes etc) it does not say they both have to be the same type or anything

Actually they can be AP3 or AP2 depending on the type of Power Weapon.

It doesn't say you can modify the weapons, just look at what it has. Conversions are not allowed or supported by the rulebook.

The issue is nothing allows you to choose *ANY* powerweapon, just see what the model actually has.

I see swords and daggers... Swords are AP3, Daggers are close to swords.

Boils down to it will get clarified in the next 3 months one way or another... I feel a lot of cheaty people are going to rush out and modify models only to be nerfed. I would advise waiting a little bit because the rulebook tried to make an overarching rule to classify existing models opposed to FAQing every weapon in the game.

They failed horribly and probably would have been better clarifying who can do what.

The ibook has no weight unless they're going to update the FAQ/errata.

LOL, believe that if you will... it is not a reasonable position and will not be accepted anywhere. I am going to assume 99% of well-run indy events and community FAQs are going to accept any mods of the digital releases.

I wouldn't have a problem with it if it weren't for the huge amount of tailoring it permits.

Playing against orks? Army-wide power mauls.
Playing against MEQ? Army-wide power swords.
Playing against TEQ? Army-wide power axes.

DarknessEternal wrote:

nohman wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:How does it work with Lychguard - they have a 'hyperphase sword' which is a power weapon, can I then give them hyperphase axes?

To pre-empt the inevitable; No, the fact it is a Hyperphase Sword is not enough on it's own, or else the Eldritch Lance is erroneously missing the Lance rule from its profile.

As stated in the other thread though, the iBook codex entry for a Hyperphase sword says that it is Strength: As user and AP3, therefore model it however you want, it has a stated profile that you have to use.

The ibook has no weight unless they're going to update the FAQ/errata.

Yeah, good luck with that opinion. It's an official Games Workshop authored Codex. It has just as much weight as your paper book, possibly more in fact, since it has already been updated for 6th edition and has the FAQ built in.

nkelsch wrote:It doesn't say you can modify the weapons, just look at what it has. Conversions are not allowed or supported by the rulebook.

The issue is nothing allows you to choose *ANY* powerweapon, just see what the model actually has.

In which case neither of the current DCA models are legal as one of them only has a single power sword, and the other doesn't have power weapons of any kind.

nkelsch wrote:It doesn't say you can modify the weapons, just look at what it has. Conversions are not allowed or supported by the rulebook.

The issue is nothing allows you to choose *ANY* powerweapon, just see what the model actually has.

I see swords and daggers... Swords are AP3, Daggers are close to swords.

For that model sure, I use the model on the right, which has only 1 power weapon. (The model on the left does not have any Power Weapons as those weapons have no power source.)

How should I go about giving another power weapon to that guy?

I just slung a Power Weapon onto the belt and called it a day.

Why can I not use a Power Axe/Maul/Lance/Sword for my model?

The wargear clearly says those guys have two Power Weapons, and Power Weapons are classified as whatever the model is carrying be it a Axe, Maul, Lance or Sword.

To say otherwise is to say that Riflemen Dreadnoughts are not legal because the Dreadnought is not supplied with Autocannons in the box.

Well except is someone does that is going to spend a fortune in minis $15 for 2 or invest in a ton of magnets. Either way as long as they are properly shown I wouldn't cre.

I have the option to give every Sternguard a combi melta. If you claim you can only arm a model with what it is supplied with that is impossible since you dont get enough in a box. I highly doubt anyone here is going to buy 10 boxes of Sternguard to " legally" give everyone in the squad one.

Sometimes you have to use a little common sense. DCAs are old models and probably won't be getting a resculpt to include the additional options until the SOB DEX is published for real.

DeathReaper wrote:

I just slung a Power Weapon onto the belt and called it a day.

Why can I not use a Power Axe/Maul/Lance/Sword for my model?

The wargear clearly says those guys have two Power Weapons, and Power Weapons are classified as whatever the model is carrying be it a Axe, Maul, Lance or Sword.

Good luck with that. Enjoy it while it lasts and enjoy arguments... conversions are not legal as it is a permissive ruleset. As soon as you rely on the nature of friendly gaming to allow conversions, good luck with the RAW of 'I can take any power weapon I model'

I don't believe that was what was intended, It appears as if they will eventually 'lock down' what specific models can have or what existing weapons are forced to 'count as' and this will all be a pointless debate.

The main issue is not with the people who model axes on their DCA... it is with the ones who won't and then claim because someone, somewhere can model it, they are allowed to proxy it.

I am going to go 'rule of cool' until all these units get nerfed. If you actually make the effort to make the model, then enjoy your advantage for however long it lasts. If you are going to say "oh orks? yeah, they are all mauls now" and not model squat, then I am not going to agree.

So Riflemen Dreadnoughts are not legal because the Dreadnought is not supplied with Autocannons in the box?

nkelsch wrote:Good luck with that. Enjoy it while it lasts and enjoy arguments... conversions are not legal as it is a permissive ruleset. As soon as you rely on the nature of friendly gaming to allow conversions, good luck with the RAW of 'I can take any power weapon I model'

This is the crux of the disagreement. You're seeing it as a conversion. Others are seeing it as modelling legally allowed wargear, and no more a conversion than giving a Space Marine Captain a power axe. Or at best, an allowable conversion, like giving a Space Marine Captain a thunderhammer.

If you disallow all conversion, you disallow a very large chunk of quite a few codexes. Requiring players to only use those options provided for in the model range is just lunacy.

Or if I use an AOBR Dread in my SM army I can't give it a Lascannon or ML since they only come with a MM

DeathReaper wrote:So Riflemen Dreadnoughts are not legal because the Dreadnought is not supplied with Autocannons in the box?

Yes... because nothing allows you to convert your models. Many of the rifelment dreds out there *ARE* illegal as the custom arms abuse LOS and shoulder mounts.

GW does provide legal autocannon arms... you get them from Forgeworld.

As soon as you convert something you enter into that area where you and your opponent have to agree on continuing the game. If someone feels you are taking advantage of an unclear rule to model for advantage they can complain or not play you. Nothing says all power weapons can be anyweapons... just that they are what the model is visually equipped with. People are going to look at stock model options for what they are eligible for.

We will see how GW handles it and if they actually intended all power weapons to be any weapons... we will also see how events handle it.

Right now:
Page 61.

"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"

I see only swords and sword-like weapons for DCA. Nothing says you may give any model any weapon. Going by GW's handling of LYNCHGUARD I expect that future rules and errata will lock down what weapons models can have.

If someone modeled a maul on a DCA at his house last week when he pulls it out of his case all I see is a maul. Looks legal to me.

Edit. Wouldn't using FW ACs be converting as you are adding a part not supplied with the model?

Redbeard wrote:
I think it is entirely modeling for advantage and it's not difficult logic to follow.

They come with a sword. That's the only model available with that name, and it only has a sword. It would be more advantageous if they had a sword and an axe, because they'd have more options. In order to get them a sword and an axe, you have to alter the model that you can buy. Hence, if you replace one of their swords with an axe, you have gained an advantage through modeling.

To everyone who says that this should be allowed, there is no where in the rules that it says you can alter a model for a competitive advantage. The rules for power weapons don't say put whatever power weapon you want on them, they say "look at the model". Well, the model has swords. That's it. Just swords. All the concept art has just swords. All the fluff has just swords. The Inquisitor scale models have swords. There's no evidence to suggest that they should have anything but swords.

People say putting a model on a different sized base than it came with is advantageous, and this has a far more concrete application that that.

Instead of the 1 sword, 1 axe combo, how would you feel if the player modeled 2 axes or 2 mauls instead? It keeps them to a single choice and each has their drawbacks and advantages.

Since only a small few kits even have an axe option but any army can use them yes you could mod them. Giving them one axe and one sword is kind of lame and broken and I would have you hit at imitative one if you wanted the extra attack. If you wanted some to have swords and other axes go ahead if you can mod them.

Hey look it is this thread again. Sigh

It is a legal weapon option and therefore is model-able. Just as all the other model options that have no existing unconverted model do.

Im also wondering when GW will be making a kit that is just 2 of each power weapon types so people can buy a ton of them.

Do they actually have 2 power weapons or do they have Power weapon and additional close combat weapon as it says on the GW website?

DCA? The codex gives them two power weapons.

nkelsch wrote:As soon as you convert something you enter into that area where you and your opponent have to agree on continuing the game.

You really don't.

If you convert a model so that its function changes (as in changing its LOS profile or its base) then yes, that would be the case. But swapping out a weapon for another legally allowed weapon doesn't fit into that. If a codex allows a model to take a weapon, and there is no model available with that weapon, no sane opponent is going to force you to stop playing while you discuss in committee whether the game should be allowed to continue with that model in play. It's just not going to happen.

Nothing says all power weapons can be anyweapons... just that they are what the model is visually equipped with.

Which is what allows them to be any weapon. The power weapon can be a sword, or an axe, or whatever. So you look at the model, and if it has an axe, it has an axe.

People are going to look at stock model options for what they are eligible for.

Which leads you to the lunacy of not allowing rifleman dreads, or Tactical Sergeants with storm bolters, or Razorbacks with anything other than lascannons or heavy bolters... or any one of a myriad other options not provided on the stock models.

I see only swords and sword-like weapons for DCA.

Yes... I notice you still haven't addressed the point that both DCA models are actually not legal under the current rules. So under your no-conversion policy, that ultimately just means that this isn't actually an issue, since nobody can actually use DCA right now anyway...

I have yet to see a SM Captain kit with an actual two-handed sword to represent a relic blade. That gives an advantage in str right? So giving one a 2h sword to actually represent this is illegal too then?

It's not MFA in any way. GW gives us the blanket statemeant of "power weapon" in the codex, then defines the different types of power weapons in the rule book. It then says to look at the model in question to determine what it has. Doesn't say "Look at the model as it came from the factory"

My generic squad veterans are capable of taking a "power weapon" There are only two models available for sisters. One with a power sword, one with a power maul. Is giving one a power axe suddenly modeling for advantage? Why would giving your squad sergeant one of the various "power weapons" be any different than giving another model the same option?

If I buy a space marine tactical squad, there are no axes in the basic tac squad box. Is giving one of them an axe modeling for advantage? GW is giving people choices here on purpose. And until a unit is FAQed to have a very specific weapon that option GW gave players SHOULD be used.

I shouldn't HAVE to give my tac marine sergeant a power sword just because I had to get my axe for the model somewhere else. The same should apply to other models including DC.

insaniak wrote:

nkelsch wrote:As soon as you convert something you enter into that area where you and your opponent have to agree on continuing the game.

You really don't.

If you convert a model so that its function changes (as in changing its LOS profile or its base) then yes, that would be the case. But swapping out a weapon for another legally allowed weapon doesn't fit into that. If a codex allows a model to take a weapon, and there is no model available with that weapon, no sane opponent is going to force you to stop playing while you discuss in committee whether the game should be allowed to continue with that model in play. It's just not going to happen.

Nothing says all power weapons can be anyweapons... just that they are what the model is visually equipped with.

Which is what allows them to be any weapon. The power weapon can be a sword, or an axe, or whatever. So you look at the model, and if it has an axe, it has an axe.

People are going to look at stock model options for what they are eligible for.

Which leads you to the lunacy of not allowing rifleman dreads, or Tactical Sergeants with storm bolters, or Razorbacks with anything other than lascannons or heavy bolters... or any one of a myriad other options not provided on the stock models.

I see only swords and sword-like weapons for DCA.

Yes... I notice you still haven't addressed the point that both DCA models are actually not legal under the current rules. So under your no-conversion policy, that ultimately just means that this isn't actually an issue, since nobody can actually use DCA right now anyway...

Except that GW has shown with LYNCHGUARD how they seem to handle this... by looking at what the stock models have and then specifying it. Otherwise if they intended all powerweapons to be anyweapons then Lynchguard would be running around with axes and mauls.

I think you are going to see GW tell us that relic axes are axes and Harlequins have swords... but they left the rules ambiguous. I feel like if they intended to allow all powerweapons to be anyweapons they would have written the rules that way opposed to relying on visual cues from GW models to determine. It was a lazy way to update 60 power weapons without writing out 60 individual erattas. (which will be the future result now.)

They could have said: "all models with power weapons may be equipped with any of the following:" but they didn't. People are just implying they said that which is not what the rules say. They do not have these choices in any armory or supported by any rules... just making conversions outside the rules to modify appearance to fulfill an ambiguous rule.

And DCA are legal the exact same way marines with no bolter modeled are legal... base weapons are implied the same way CCW/bolter/pistol are implied. And all I see are 'swords'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

IcedAnimals wrote:
I shouldn't HAVE to give my tac marine sergeant a power sword just because I had to get my axe for the model somewhere else. The same should apply to other models including DC.

Lynchguard have to give their models Swords because you would have to get axes elsewhere. They are restricted. Why shouldn't everyone else be equally restricted?

nkelsch wrote:Except that GW has shown with LYNCHGUARD how they seem to handle this... by looking at what the stock models have and then specifying it.

The difference being that they actually specified it. They wanted Lychguard to have swords, so they specified swords. They didn't for everyone else... In many cases, the specifically went the other way, and changed references to swords to the generic 'weapon'.

I feel like if they intended to allow all powerweapons to be anyweapons they would have written the rules that way ...

And the reason you're seeing people disagree with you is that many players feel that this is exactly what they did...

And DCA are legal the exact same way marines with no bolter modeled are legal... base weapons are implied the same way CCW/bolter/pistol are implied. And all I see are 'swords'.

DCA have two power weapons. You say we have to look at the base model to determine which power weapons the model has.

So we can see that one of the DCA has a single power sword. How do we determine what the second power weapon is?
The other DCA has two knives or swords, and no power weapons. How do we determine which power weapons it has?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:Lynchguard have to give their models Swords because you would have to get axes elsewhere. They are restricted. Why shouldn't everyone else be equally restricted?

Lychguard have to have swords because their rules specify that they have swords.

Everyone else is not so restricted because everyone else has access to power weapons (which can be swords axes, etc) rather than swords specifically.

Testify wrote:I wouldn't have a problem with it if it weren't for the huge amount of tailoring it permits.

Playing against orks? Army-wide power mauls.
Playing against MEQ? Army-wide power swords.
Playing against TEQ? Army-wide power axes.

Are we sure this isn't where the confusion is?

You can't just have "power weapons" equipped, and then during the game decide "this is a maul/sword/ax/lance." That is decided for you when you put together the model and then plop it down on the table. I suppose with magnetic arms you could tailor immediately before a game, but no moreso than any other tailoring options (and it wouldn't be possible/would be heavily frowned upon during multi-game sessions).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:
I think you are going to see GW tell us that relic axes are axes and Harlequins have swords... but they left the rules ambiguous. I feel like if they intended to allow all powerweapons to be anyweapons they would have written the rules that way opposed to relying on visual cues from GW models to determine. It was a lazy way to update 60 power weapons without writing out 60 individual erattas. (which will be the future result now.)

I'm not saying "all power weapons are any power weapons". I'm saying "all power weapons are whatever they look like, determined by the WYSIWYG representation created by you at the time of assembly, just like any other choice you made."

And DCA are legal the exact same way marines with no bolter modeled are legal... base weapons are implied the same way CCW/bolter/pistol are implied. And all I see are 'swords'.

So, if base weapons are implied, and a DCA's base weapons are "power weapons", what rules do you use? Please explain to me how you jump to swords. As has been pointed out several times, if we are going to be nitpicking, the only way to determine WHICH PW is used is to look at the model. "Looking at the model" is the opposite of "using what is implied".

Testify wrote:I wouldn't have a problem with it if it weren't for the huge amount of tailoring it permits.

Playing against orks? Army-wide power mauls.
Playing against MEQ? Army-wide power swords.
Playing against TEQ? Army-wide power axes.

So the magnetic arms on my Tyranid MCs and warriors is MFA?

Come to think of it my DA's also have magnetic arms for their special weapons.

My goodness I must be TFG.

Games Workshop, sense I've been playing at least, has encouraged gamers to kit bash models. They fully endorse gamers coming up with unique models...assuming the bits are all homegrown or GW derived. If I want to take a combination of bits from the Dark Eldar Wyche box and Assault Marine box to make a Deathcult Assassin with a power axe, that's perfectly legal. Anyone who says otherwise has missed something.

DeathReaper wrote:

DogOfWar wrote:Is it modeling for advantage? Sure.

No it is not modelling for advantage.

You are changing a model to give it wargear that it can legally have.

MFA would be modeling the DCA 1/2 inch tall claiming they are midgets then claiming 25% cover for being behind something that is 1/8th inch tall.

I disagree.

Any modeling that I do that isn't fall entirely under "the rule of cool" is, literally, modeling for advantage. That doesn't mean it's necessarily poor sportsmanship, however, especially if it's clearly legal.

I see it along the same lines as the word 'criticism'. It's not necessarily bad —in fact you often get positive criticism— but common use has given it a distinctly negative connotation.

This being said, negative MFA is hard to define exactly but, as Justice Stewart famously quoted, "I know it when I see it."

DoW

So uhm, to the naysayers in this post. My DCAs (from 5th ed, mind) are converted wyches with various weapons, many of which are non-sword-like, as their power weapons. Many look like axes, halberds, or some such. I converted wyches because no store in my country carries DCAs and aren't willing to special import them because no one buys them.

Are you saying that I now have a squad of DCAs that are now invalidated since they don't have power swords? Do I have to force myself to spend >$15 on 2 models, not inclusive of international shipping OR import taxes, and then have the same 2 models repeated like 15 times each in my entire army, simply because there's a GW model for it?

Not this again...

Yes, you can actually convert your models; there is even a section in the book which shows how to do that.

DogOfWar wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:No it is not modelling for advantage.

You are changing a model to give it wargear that it can legally have.

MFA would be modeling the DCA 1/2 inch tall claiming they are midgets then claiming 25% cover for being behind something that is 1/8th inch tall.

I disagree.

Any modeling that I do that isn't fall entirely under "the rule of cool" is, literally, modeling for advantage. That doesn't mean it's necessarily poor sportsmanship, however, especially if it's clearly legal.

MFA is Modelling to take advantage rules that were not intended to work in that way with your conversion. Be it a Different LoS on your vehicle's guns, a Smaller Profile than similar models to gain cover benefits, or hanging a chapter banner off of a Stormraven that is so bit it covers the rest of your army, and you claim the opponent does not have LoS to the models behind the banner.

Swapping a Tac Squad Sergeant's weapon for a Power Fist is legal and NOT MFA.

It is simply utilizing the options available to the army list.

The rules tell you that you can only use citadel models. The rules section gives no allowance to alter your models.

The permission to determine what weapon you are equipped with is by looking at the model; by default this can ONLY mean the default model provided by Citadel miniatures, which includes FW.

You have no permission to alter the model, meaning you have no permission to add an axe and then say "a hah! this model has an Axe!" and claim you get all the benefits.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The rules tell you that you can only use citadel models. The rules section gives no allowance to alter your models.

And that's fine as a purely academic argument. But as a practical answer to a rules question for a game like 40K, it's completely and utterly useless. Because the moment you try, with a straight face, to tell an opponent that he can't use a converted model because the rules only allow stock standard Citadel models, you're going to find yourself minus an opponent.

Even if you actually think it's technically the 'right' answer, it's not the answer that anyone in their right mind is going to try to apply on the table.


Conversions are required to accurately represent quite a large number of options throughout the various armies in the game. Whether the rules specifically allow them or not, people are going to carry on converting models to have those wargear options not currently available in the model range.


Really, the only argument I can see as being in any way valid for disallowing DCA's to change their power weapons is the simple fact that there is no good reason to not have two different weapons. It's exponentially better than having two swords, because it lets you tailor your attacks to the enemy at hand at the time. With that in mind it wouldn't surprise me, if GW do ever bother to FAQ it, for it to wind up limited to two of the same power weapon.

But that's not a rules argument, just a games design one.

GW need to fix this by errating what stats ex "power weapon" have in this edition.

Instead of letting people pick between ALL the power weapon variants -_-

LunaHound wrote:GW need to fix this by errating what stats ex "power weapon" have in this edition.

They did. They told us that the power weapon is whatever weapon type the model is holding.

All they need to 'fix' is to explain whether they actually meant that to mean that you choose and put the appropriate weapon on the model, or for you to be stuck with whatever the model came with out of the box.

And given the number of multi-part kits out there now with multiple weapon options, it shouldn't really be too hard to figure out which way that will go.

insaniak wrote:

LunaHound wrote:GW need to fix this by errating what stats ex "power weapon" have in this edition.

They did. They told us that the power weapon is whatever weapon type the model is holding.

Then wouldnt Lych Guard hyper phase sword be an axe?
are we talking about the name it has, or what functionality its supposed to have?

the phase sword looks choppy and 1 edged

DeathReaper wrote:

nkelsch wrote:It doesn't say you can modify the weapons, just look at what it has. Conversions are not allowed or supported by the rulebook.

To say otherwise is to say that Riflemen Dreadnoughts are not legal because the Dreadnought is not supplied with Autocannons in the box.

I was following you til this. the dreadnought specifically has that wargear as an UPGRADE not a "model me like this for no points and gain a benefit"
I see both sides but I just think you should go with what your sprue has and leave it at that. My .02

Keep the burna thing out of here. That's a separate thread.

"You have no rule basis saying that you cannot convert models but there is plenty in the BRB that allows, and even suggests you convert models. "

In the hobby section. Not the rules. Can you please at least acknowledge there is a difference? Or do you honestly believe that everything in the hobby section is a rule, and vice versa?

The ruleset is permissive. You have to have a rule saying you CAN convert the model for you to be able to convert the model.

Pretre - wrong. Orikan "This is a finely detailed resin cast kit, and contains five components and a 25mm round base with which to make Orikan the Diviner. "

Components to make Orikan, which is a model. Try again,

Please find allowance to change the supplied Citadel Miniature for a model that is NOT a citadel miniature. Until you can do so then a DCA, which is supplied with Swords, stays that way in rules.

What if I use weapons from another citadel minature to make the DCA armed with whatever power weapons I like?
It is a citadel minature, madde of citadel products, even citadel glue to ensure it's cool. What is the problem?

@pretre, I don't have the rule book to hand. So unless another provides you a page number I will do so when I can.

Nos, do you accept that I can use Devastator parts to build the Heavy Weapons for my Tactical Squad?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Pretre - wrong. Orikan "This is a finely detailed resin cast kit, and contains five components and a 25mm round base with which to make Orikan the Diviner. "

Components to make Orikan, which is a model. Try again,

Please find allowance to change the supplied Citadel Miniature for a model that is NOT a citadel miniature. Until you can do so then a DCA, which is supplied with Swords, stays that way in rules.

That's the website and not in the rules section, so it doesn't count.

Show a rules reference that says what a model consists of and that you would have to assemble it in order to make it one.

There isn't one. There is no definition of model other than 'citadel miniature'. So, if we allowed the website, some models would need to be assembled (like orikan) but others wouldn't (cadians, rhinos) since they don't mention that in the description.

DJ - So the fact it isnt a power weapon at all times isnt a unique close combat rule? Not only OT but wrong.

Frankly you have descended to nonsense now. I said "conversions live and die by the rule of cool" - as in: they have NO PERMISSION IN THE RULES to exist. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. So, if you wish to use them then following the rule of cool is a good start. It also isnt a real rule - it isnt in the rulebook RULES section - it is just the name given to a convention used in tournaments and friendly games, erroneously called a "rule"

Nothing in the suggestion of cool says "converting your model so it provides an ingame advantage is cool", so it really doesnt apply to MFA. An 18" wide converted battelwagon would be unlikely to meet with the rule of cool, and a conversion allowing your power sword armed models, as dictated by the Citadel Miniature, can now cut through TEQ armour also doesnt meet with it.

Convert them to have axes but play them as swords because that is what the correct model is armed with? Fine, if they look cool. Trying to claim you get a sword and an axe, and so can choose between them, despite the model not coming with an axe? Not cool

And how is the website more reliable than the hobby section of the rulebook which does detail assembly, painting and conversion?

pretre wrote:Keep the burna thing out of here. That's a separate thread.

No, this is entirely relevant. Nos is stating that if a model as sculpted does not come with exactly what it is supposed to have, then any and all conversions/weapon swaps are MFA and illegal.

There are no rules about how you build your model. Absolutly none. You build a supplied model, great. There is nothing saying you cannot add to that supplied model. Do my marines now not carry pistols b/c itisint on them? How about grenades? Do my CSM not carry bolt pistol and cc b/c I modeled them with a bolter? If you are telling me that I must re-do the way I have modeled my miniatures b/c you dont like fighting against special rules gw made then you can be the one to take them apart and rebiuld them, as can anyone else who tells me that the way I build my models makes them invalid.

Nos,

I normally agree with most of your interpretations. Let me ask you this, I just bought a "Night Lords Hero" out of metal. He is equipped with a bolter and a combi-flamer. Would I be out of line if I chose to equip this model with a combi-melta instead? And I mean physically change the model to be a combi-melta? Do I need explicit permission from GW to change this model they have released?

I see the power weapon situation being no different than the combi-weapon situation. For 10 points, I can purchase a combi-weapon of my choice. Once it is on the model, that is what it is. How is a power weapon any different?

Pretre - so you are saying Citadel Miniatures cannot define what their models are?

Interesting supposition.

Still, can you find any rules alowing you to convert models from the Citadel Miniatures provided to you by GW? Until you can do so you have no permission to alter the model from that which Citadel Miniatures has defined.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Convert them to have axes but play them as swords because that is what the correct model is armed with? Fine, if they look cool. Trying to claim you get a sword and an axe, and so can choose between them, despite the model not coming with an axe? Not cool

And yet, RAW, entirely within the rules. So what's your point again?

There is nothing saying the modeleing section of the BRB is not a rules binding section either. Show me where it says that.

OK. So if I decided to create a character out of plastic parts, as long as it it WYSIWYG correctly, what says it is not that model?

I get a kit and make a sergeant. Am I allowed to put whatever wargear I want on it? Or do I have to folllow the precedent set by one metal model made by GW 10 years ago?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Pretre - so you are saying Citadel Miniatures cannot define what their models are?

According to you, they cannot do so unless they do it within the rules section of the rulebook.

Still, can you find any rules alowing you to convert models from the Citadel Miniatures provided to you by GW? Until you can do so you have no permission to alter the model from that which Citadel Miniatures has defined.

Nope, I cannot find anything in the rules section that allows conversion. The same as you cannot find anything that allows assembly or painting. You have no permission to assemble or paint your models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

djdarknoise wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Convert them to have axes but play them as swords because that is what the correct model is armed with? Fine, if they look cool. Trying to claim you get a sword and an axe, and so can choose between them, despite the model not coming with an axe? Not cool

And yet, RAW, entirely within the rules. So what's your point again?

Yeah, Nos's interpretation above actually violated the rules for Power Weapons listed in the book as you are supposed to play them as they are on the model.

Nos, can you please address my question.

Do you accept that I can use Devastator parts to build the Heavy Weapons for my Tactical Squad? If so, why?

Green is Best! wrote:Nos,

I normally agree with most of your interpretations. Let me ask you this, I just bought a "Night Lords Hero" out of metal. He is equipped with a bolter and a combi-flamer. Would I be out of line if I chose to equip this model with a combi-melta instead? And I mean physically change the model to be a combi-melta? Do I need explicit permission from GW to change this model they have released?

I see the power weapon situation being no different than the combi-weapon situation. For 10 points, I can purchase a combi-weapon of my choice. Once it is on the model, that is what it is. How is a power weapon any different?

Technically? Yes, to the main question. You have no rules permission to change the weapon, but do not need explicit permission from GW to change it if you want to do so - just to play with it you now have a non-citadel mini, and thus need opponents permission. In a pick up game - easily done. In a tournament - ask the TO

Which is the entire point of this.

The STOCK rule is that you use the Citadel Miniature, and are not given allowance to alter said miniature in any way. So, anytime you do so - as has been pointed out all through these modelling threads - you risk rejection by opponents, and they would have a rules justification for doing so.

Now, in your case would it be a reasonable use of this rule? Probably not - after all, it is an allowed option in the book, and unless you decided to make the combiflamer 30x larger than normal so it acted to block LOS to half your army, it's negative impact on the game is likely to be outweighed by the positives.

Now, how is this different to the power weapon issue? Because with a power weapon, you are told it is MODEL FIRST, not *modeller* first. To whit: you are told the model defines the weapon. It does NOT say the modeller can change the weapon to be whatever they want - just that the model fixes what type of weapon you are allowed

So, if your model comes with Citadel provided Options, then you can pick those options. Howveer there is no allowance for you to create your own, non-citadel provided optons and use those instead.

If a model comes with power swords only, and you give it additional abilities strictly through modelling that give you an advantage in game, this is the VERY definition of MFA, and is likely to cause you issues under the page 2 rule. Is this issue justified? In this case I would say YES, as you are creating a model with no drawbacks, when it is modelled to have drawbacks

This is no different to modelling the TLAC on a SR underslung, so it is easier to target ground units. Or modelling a BW so it is wider making it easier to get Front AV14 against incoming shots.

I'm glad that you are saying changing a combi-flamer to a combi-melta is equivalent to laying down wraithlords, underslung TLAC and superwide BW.

That makes complete sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
P.S. Now I am being facetious.

Pretre - sigh.

Everyone - play it as you wish. However any tournament I run will enforce the requirement that a DCA does not come with Swords, and so you cannot play it as swords

MFA all you like, just dont be surprised if people dont want to play you


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:I'm glad that you are saying using heavy weapons from a different kit to outfit your tac squad is equivalent to laying down wraithlords, underslung TLAC and superwide BW.

That makes complete sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
P.S. Now I am being facetious.

Shock. Thanks for straw manning, as well.


And jsut to make it clear: it is GW that have made all conversions have the same illegality. They have not included any sliding scale of what is acceptable and what isnt. They have just said that you use citadel miniatures, and not given you permission for ANY conversion.

If you dont like the rules GW operate, blame them. I've been reasonable to increasingly gak laden posts which dont get this simple premise - GW dont have rules allowing conversions. None at all. Changed 1mm of the model? Not allowed, according to their rules. Made a kneeling wraithlord? Not allowed by their rules.

Now, one I said was a reasonable conversion, one I said wasnt. That is apparently making them equivalent. You're better than that, pretre.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Pretre - sigh.

Everyone - play it as you wish. However any tournament I run will enforce the requirement that a DCA does not come with Swords, and so you cannot play it as swords

MFA all you like, just dont be surprised if people dont want to play you

DCA don't come with swords. One comes with swords. One comes with sword.

pretre wrote:I'm glad that you are saying using heavy weapons from a different kit to outfit your tac squad is equivalent to laying down wraithlords, underslung TLAC and superwide BW.

That makes complete sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
P.S. Now I am being facetious.

Shock. Thanks for straw manning, as well.

It's not a strawman. You said that modifying your model in any way is the same as the classic MFA scenarios. Look at your own post.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Green is Best! wrote:Nos,

I normally agree with most of your interpretations. Let me ask you this, I just bought a "Night Lords Hero" out of metal. He is equipped with a bolter and a combi-flamer. Would I be out of line if I chose to equip this model with a combi-melta instead? And I mean physically change the model to be a combi-melta? Do I need explicit permission from GW to change this model they have released?

I see the power weapon situation being no different than the combi-weapon situation. For 10 points, I can purchase a combi-weapon of my choice. Once it is on the model, that is what it is. How is a power weapon any different?

Technically? Yes, to the main question. You have no rules permission to change the weapon, but do not need explicit permission from GW to change it if you want to do so - just to play with it you now have a non-citadel mini, and thus need opponents permission. In a pick up game - easily done. In a tournament - ask the TO

Which is the entire point of this.

The STOCK rule is that you use the Citadel Miniature, and are not given allowance to alter said miniature in any way. So, anytime you do so - as has been pointed out all through these modelling threads - you risk rejection by opponents, and they would have a rules justification for doing so.

Now, in your case would it be a reasonable use of this rule? Probably not - after all, it is an allowed option in the book, and unless you decided to make the combiflamer 30x larger than normal so it acted to block LOS to half your army, it's negative impact on the game is likely to be outweighed by the positives.

Now, how is this different to the power weapon issue? Because with a power weapon, you are told it is MODEL FIRST, not *modeller* first. To whit: you are told the model defines the weapon. It does NOT say the modeller can change the weapon to be whatever they want - just that the model fixes what type of weapon you are allowed

So, if your model comes with Citadel provided Options, then you can pick those options. Howveer there is no allowance for you to create your own, non-citadel provided optons and use those instead.

If a model comes with power swords only, and you give it additional abilities strictly through modelling that give you an advantage in game, this is the VERY definition of MFA, and is likely to cause you issues under the page 2 rule. Is this issue justified? In this case I would say YES, as you are creating a model with no drawbacks, when it is modelled to have drawbacks

This is no different to modelling the TLAC on a SR underslung, so it is easier to target ground units. Or modelling a BW so it is wider making it easier to get Front AV14 against incoming shots.

So what does it mean when my codex says "..any model can replace bolt pistol and or chainsword with the following..." ?

nosferatu1001 wrote:If a model comes with power swords only, and you give it additional abilities strictly through modelling that give you an advantage in game, this is the VERY definition of MFA, and is likely to cause you issues under the page 2 rule. Is this issue justified? In this case I would say YES, as you are creating a model with no drawbacks, when it is modelled to have drawbacks.

There are absolutely drawbacks to what type of power weapon you take. You want AP2, you swing last. You want to swing first, you go to AP3 or AP4. You want increased strength, you lose more AP. I quite like this new system that GW has come up with. It is probably one of the only things that is remotely balanced in the game.

The last time I was at my FLGS, I saw a chaor sorceror with an axe (pewter model). I bought it just to have an AP2 force weapon if I need it. Now, if I were to create a chaos sorceror from parts, do I HAVE to use an axe?

Well, that wasnt messy at all (sarcasm) but quick for a YMDC argument.... I mean discussion. I think the overall concensus is they it is not MFA and only modeling for wargear

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:Well, that wasnt messy at all (sarcasm) but quick for a YMDC argument.... I mean discussion. I think the overall concensus is they it is not MFA and only modeling for wargear

And always check with your TO before doing anything.

FWIW, the next event I'm going to is allowing it. If I were to go to Nos's event (not sure where you are at Nos), I would respect his decision as it is his event (even if I don't agree with it) and play them as swords or bring a different army.

Nos, perhaps I'm blind. But are you avoiding my question?

I'll repeat it again.

Do you accept that I can use Devastator parts to build the Heavy Weapons for my Tactical Squad? If so, why?

WhoopieMonster wrote:Nos, perhaps I'm blind. But are you avoiding my question?

I'll repeat it again.

Do you accept that I can use Devastator parts to build the Heavy Weapons for my Tactical Squad? If so, why?

He has not answered you directly, but he has answered the question. Check back to his most recent response on modelling available options using other kits.

I believe the answer was 'With Opponent Permission'.

Technically? Yes, to the main question. You have no rules permission to change the weapon, but do not need explicit permission from GW to change it if you want to do so - just to play with it you now have a non-citadel mini, and thus need opponents permission. In a pick up game - easily done. In a tournament - ask the TO

Which is the entire point of this.

The STOCK rule is that you use the Citadel Miniature, and are not given allowance to alter said miniature in any way. So, anytime you do so - as has been pointed out all through these modelling threads - you risk rejection by opponents, and they would have a rules justification for doing so.

pretre wrote:It's not a strawman. You said that modifying your model in any way is the same as the classic MFA scenarios. Look at your own post.

No, I said it is breaking the same rule, not that it is the same. Read my post again, just a little more carefully this time.

Are you breaking the same rule? Yes. Does GW equate them? Yes, in so much as it is binary - rule broken or rule not broken. That isnt my assessment of equivalency, but GWs. I said that in terms of degrees would one be considered a reasonable conversion and one wouldnt? Yes. You just decided to ignore that, and create a strawman argument.

I expected better of you.

Green is best - you've missed that DCA get TWO POWER WEAPONS. As in, they can take BOTH a sword AND an Axe. Meaning they get to strike at I6 S4 AP3 against MEQ or worse, and still get to hit at AP2 against TEQs. Thus they suffer absolutely no disadvantage

Vindicare - the consensus amongst those not following the rules is - do wnat you want. Amongst those who follow the rules, it is MFA and, as a conversion that is MFA is unlikely to pass in many big tournaments.

Those who follow your viewpoint on the rules. an 80%+ poll shows that the majority is not in your favor, not that it matters in YMDC.

Thanks pretre.

Apologies NOS. I did read your post. But I wanted clarification if you viewed multipart plastic kits as == to Finecast or metal minatures when it comes to changing their equipment.

Most would view chopping an already cast part of a minature off and then adding a different, but allowed by wargear, weapon as a conversion. I personally would not call a Heavy Bolter Tactical Marine a conversion.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

pretre wrote:It's not a strawman. You said that modifying your model in any way is the same as the classic MFA scenarios. Look at your own post.

No, I said it is breaking the same rule, not that it is the same. Read my post again, just a little more carefully this time.

Same thing. Breaking the same rule. I read it fine. Matters of degree are really irrelevant. Is it allowed or isn't it is what I'm talking about.

You are saying that, from a rules standpoint, changing a combi-melta to a combi-flamer is the same as making a 12" front BW, which is the same as modelling Power Axe / Power Sword on a DCA. I disagree.

Vindicare - the consensus amongst those not following the rules is - do wnat you want. Amongst those who follow the rules, it is MFA and, as a conversion that is MFA is unlikely to pass in many big tournaments.

You have yet to provide a rule showing that conversion or assembly is allowed. So there is no clear 'some folks follow the rules'. Right now, it is unclear what the rules for conversion or assembly are.

Claiming that the hobby section in the official rulebook isn't part of the rules is one of the silliest things I have ever heard here.

You can't play the game without building the models..... Building the models is not part of the gameplay rules, and as such has no place in the rules of gameplay section.

They are covered in the RELEVANT section aptly named "The hobby"

"The Hobby" is located in the official rulebook, and it shows in detail how to assemble citadel models. The rules of gameplay are irrelevant if you don't have assembled models.

Given I am on the only side to supply actual rules, and the I can convert models to look however I like including modelling for advantage side havent, breaking the tenets of this site multiple times, the poll is fairly irrelevant from a YMDC rules perspective.

From a HWYPI side - i would never model for advantage in taking away any and all drawbacks to the DCA's attacks, and would prefer not to play against people who would exploit a modelling conversion to give them an ingame advantage.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Given I am on the only side to supply actual rules, and the I can convert models to look however I like including modelling for advantage side havent, breaking the tenets of this site multiple times, the poll is fairly irrelevant from a YMDC rules perspective.

But you haven't. The only rule you have shown to 'support' your claim is the rule on page 2 saying you need to play with citadel miniatures. You have then extrapolated from that to say that you cannot modify them in any way. You have not provided any proof that you can or cannot modify, assemble or paint Citadel miniatures without changing them from Citadel miniatures to this category you created of 'non-citadel miniatures'.

Provide some rules quotes.

pretre wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

pretre wrote:It's not a strawman. You said that modifying your model in any way is the same as the classic MFA scenarios. Look at your own post.

No, I said it is breaking the same rule, not that it is the same. Read my post again, just a little more carefully this time.

Same thing. Breaking the same rule. I read it fine. Matters of degree are really irrelevant. Is it allowed or isn't it is what I'm talking about.

You are saying that, from a rules standpoint, changing a combi-melta to a combi-flamer is the same as making a 12" front BW, which is the same as modelling Power Axe / Power Sword on a DCA. I disagree.

With no rules basis for it. Please follow the tenets of this forum and provide a page and paragraph supprting why you disagree that a conversion breaks the rules which do not give permission to allow conversions, or state that this is simply "opinion" and has no rules basis.

pretre wrote:
You have yet to provide a rule showing that conversion or assembly is allowed. So there is no clear 'some folks follow the rules'. Right now, it is unclear what the rules for conversion or assembly are.

There are no rules allowing conversion - or at least despite asking you have been unable to provide any
GW have stated you use citadel miniatures. Citadel Miniatures have defined assembly. Try again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Given I am on the only side to supply actual rules, and the I can convert models to look however I like including modelling for advantage side havent, breaking the tenets of this site multiple times, the poll is fairly irrelevant from a YMDC rules perspective.

But you haven't. The only rule you have shown to 'support' your claim is the rule on page 2 saying you need to play with citadel miniatures. You have then extrapolated from that to say that you cannot modify them in any way. You have not provided any proof that you can or cannot modify, assemble or paint Citadel miniatures without changing them from Citadel miniatures to this category you created of 'non-citadel miniatures'.

Provide some rules quotes.

Permissive ruleset. Provide a rule allowing conversions, or concede you have no permission to convert a model.

Are you saying that a converted Citadel Miniature is still a Citadel Miniature? You do realise how absurd an argument that is? If I take {A} and add {B} to it, is it still {A}? "non-citadel miniature" is simply short hand for "this isnt a model sold by Citadel Miniatures and therefore cannot fit the requirement of being a Citadel Miniture"

Again, permissive ruleset. If you fail to AGAIN provide ANY SINGLE RULE allowing you to convert your model to be whatever you like, then you have conceded the argument.

Saying that swapping a weapon of a Citadel Miniature to a weapon from another Citadel Miniature makes the end result not to be a Citadel Miniature is absurd, and Nosferatu's whole reasoning is based on that. It is ludicrous notion with no RAW or RAI support. This should be clear to anyone.

Citadel Miniatures are often multipart kits that are specificly designed so that that you can easily swap parts between the kits. Doing so does not cause them to stop being Citadel Miniatures.

Crimson wrote:Saying that sqapping a weapon of a Citadel Miniature to a weapon from another Citadel Miniature makes the end result not to be a Citadel Miniature is absurd, and Nosferatu's whole reasoning is based on that. It is ludicrous notion with no RAW or RAI support. This should be clear to anyone.

Then provide a rule. Just one.

Crimson wrote:Citadel Miniatures are often multipart kits that are specificly designed so that that you can easily swap parts between the kits. Doing so does not cause them to stop being Citadel Miniatures.

DCA do not have any Axes made for the CItadel Miniature Death Cult Assassin miniature. Are you saying that putting an Axe on the model means it is still the same miniature sold by Citadel Miniatures? That is patently absurd

I got it, Nos is a member of the tech cult of mars. By converting the models we have angered their model spirit and the omnissiah (jes goodwin) will strike us down.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

pretre wrote:
You have yet to provide a rule showing that conversion or assembly is allowed. So there is no clear 'some folks follow the rules'. Right now, it is unclear what the rules for conversion or assembly are.

There are no rules allowing conversion - or at least despite asking you have been unable to provide any
GW have stated you use citadel miniatures. Citadel Miniatures have defined assembly. Try again.

Please provide a page reference, in the rules, that defines assembly of Citadel Miniatures. You have not.

Permissive ruleset. Provide a rule allowing conversions, or concede you have no permission to convert a model.

Permissive ruleset. Provide a rule allowing assembly, or concede you have no permission to assemble a model.

Are you saying that a converted Citadel Miniature is still a Citadel Miniature? You do realise how absurd an argument that is? If I take {A} and add {B} to it, is it still {A}? "non-citadel miniature" is simply short hand for "this isnt a model sold by Citadel Miniatures and therefore cannot fit the requirement of being a Citadel Miniture"

Yes, if I take a citadel miniature and convert it with citadel parts, it is still a citadel miniature.

Again, permissive ruleset. If you fail to AGAIN provide ANY SINGLE RULE allowing you to convert your model to be whatever you like, then you have conceded the argument.

Again, permissive ruleset. If you fail to AGAIN provide ANY SINGLE RULE allowing you to assemble your model, then you have conceded the argument.

Or, perhaps, just a reasonable player who doesnt like converting models to gain an advantage?

You need to take the rulebook as a whole. The game is meant to be played by human beings, not autistic robots*. You need to assemble your models in order to play, and there's a section in the book which tells you how to do that. This same section also instructs how to convert models. Conversions are an intended part of the game.

(* No offence to autists or robots intended)

pretre wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

pretre wrote:
You have yet to provide a rule showing that conversion or assembly is allowed. So there is no clear 'some folks follow the rules'. Right now, it is unclear what the rules for conversion or assembly are.

There are no rules allowing conversion - or at least despite asking you have been unable to provide any
GW have stated you use citadel miniatures. Citadel Miniatures have defined assembly. Try again.

Please provide a page reference, in the rules, that defines assembly of Citadel Miniatures. You have not.

So your answer is "no, I cannot provide a rule allowing conversion?"

Do you disagree?

pretre wrote:

Permissive ruleset. Provide a rule allowing conversions, or concede you have no permission to convert a model.

Permissive ruleset. Provide a rule allowing assembly, or concede you have no permission to assemble a model.

So your answer is "no, I cannot provide a rule allowing conversion?"

Do you disagree?

pretre wrote:

Are you saying that a converted Citadel Miniature is still a Citadel Miniature? You do realise how absurd an argument that is? If I take {A} and add {B} to it, is it still {A}? "non-citadel miniature" is simply short hand for "this isnt a model sold by Citadel Miniatures and therefore cannot fit the requirement of being a Citadel Miniture"

Yes, if I take a citadel miniature and convert it with citadel parts, it is still a citadel miniature.

So, if you take a CM DCA, and convert it with a CM Power Axe, it is still the same CM DCA sold by GW? How about I take a DCA and add 2 arms to itm both from citadel kits. Is it still a CM DCA?

Cant tell if you are being facetious or serious. I almost want you to be facetious,as annoying as that is all through this thread.

pretre wrote:

Again, permissive ruleset. If you fail to AGAIN provide ANY SINGLE RULE allowing you to convert your model to be whatever you like, then you have conceded the argument.

Again, permissive ruleset. If you fail to AGAIN provide ANY SINGLE RULE allowing you to assemble your model, then you have conceded the argument.

So your answer is "no, I cannot provide a rule allowing conversion?"

Do you disagree?

I accept your concession. Once you can argue non-facetiously, i will again point you to the fact that GW have defined CM as the miniatures we use, therefore how they define models shoudl be assembled, and that they are to be assembled to form a miniature, IS the rules in this area

However you cannot find a rule allowing you to convert those CM Minatures to represent anything other than the options supplied


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crimson wrote:
You need to take the rulebook as a whole. The game is meant to be played by human beings, not autistic robots*. You need to assemble your models in order to play, and there's a section in the book which tells you how to do that. This same section also instructs how to convert models. Conversions are an intended part of the game.

(* No offence to autists or robots intended)

That would be the section entitled "the hobby", as opposed to that section called "the rules"

Or are you saying that the hobby section contains rules? Despite the specific "RULES" section existing?

DeathReaper wrote:MFA is Modelling to take advantage rules that were not intended to work in that way with your conversion. Be it a Different LoS on your vehicle's guns, a Smaller Profile than similar models to gain cover benefits, or hanging a chapter banner off of a Stormraven that is so bit it covers the rest of your army, and you claim the opponent does not have LoS to the models behind the banner.

Swapping a Tac Squad Sergeant's weapon for a Power Fist is legal and NOT MFA.

It is simply utilizing the options available to the army list.

Is your definition of MFA in the rulebook then? Seems like you're presenting it as fact and not opinion.

A literal definition of MFA disagrees with your interpretation. Your example of swapping a PF for a PS on a Sergeant is not relevant since it clearly indicates in the army section how this is accomplished (points cost, replacement, etc.)

The DCA example is much more nebulous as it doesn't define the weapons used. There are no 'options', as you put it, in the army list, merely that it does not specify the particular type. That is why it's appropriate MFA, rather than inappropriate MFA, but still very clearly an advantage gained from actively changing the model.

DoW

nosferatu1001 wrote:So your answer is "no, I cannot provide a rule allowing conversion?"

Do you disagree?

So your answer is "no, I cannot provide a rule allowing assembly?"

Do you disagree?

pretre wrote:So, if you take a CM DCA, and convert it with a CM Power Axe, it is still the same CM DCA sold by GW?

No, but it is still a citadel miniature.

How about I take a DCA and add 2 arms to itm both from citadel kits. Is it still a CM DCA?

Yep.

I accept your concession. I will again point you to the fact that the definition of assembly for Citadel miniatures is not contained in the rules section, but in the hobby section. The same place that conversion is defined/described.

However, you cannot find a rule allowing you to assemble those CM Minatures within the RULES section.

Just want to make a note here. Some modifications are forced modifications. As in if you want the legal option, you have to convert.

Dreads with twin-linked autocannons. If you want to take this type of dread, which is a legal dread in all marine codexes, then you have to convert. If not, then you are not playing WYSIWYG but rather, count as.

Combi-weapons? Most kits don't come with that option (or they don't come with enough of those options) so you have to convert if you want to, say, take a unit of 10 sternguards with combi-weapons.

Same with sergeants with thunderhammers and other such models. If the model can legally take a wargear option in its codex but the kit does not come with that model option (or not enough), then you are forced to convert to make the model WYSIWYG legal.


Ok, carry on with the rules discussion.

jy2 wrote:Just want to make a note here. Some modifications are forced modifications. As in if you want the legal option, you have to convert.

Right, but the opposing argument goes that there is no permission in the rules to create any of those conversions.

I agree that there is no permission in the RULES section of the Rulebook to paint, assemble or convert your minis. I disagree that the Hobby section is completely irrelevant in this discussion and feel that it shows the 'rules' for assembly, conversion, painting and use of Citadel Miniatures.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
That would be the section entitled "the hobby", as opposed to that section called "the rules"

Or are you saying that the hobby section contains rules? Despite the specific "RULES" section existing?

The hobby section contains instructions relating to how to play the game.

You are correct that the rules section says nothing about conversions and it does not say anyting about assembling your models either.

You seem to agree that we need assembled Citadel Miniatures in order to play. However, the rules section of the book does not tell us how these mystrious assembled Citadel Miniatures come into being. At this point you have two options. One is to conclude that an error has accured and the game cannot proceed. Rules on assembling models cannot be found. Other is to refer to the hobby section of the book, which tells you how to assemble your models. Incidentally it also tells how to convert them. I cannot see how logically any other options are possible.

Crimson wrote:You seem to agree that we need assembled Citadel Miniatures in order to play. However, the rules section of the book does not tell us how these mystrious assembled Citadel Miniatures come into being. At this point you have two options. One is to conclude that an error has accured and the game cannot proceed. Rules on assembling models cannot be found. Other is to refer to the hobby section of the book, which tells you how to assemble your models. Incidentally it also tells how to conver them. I annot see how logically any other options are possible.

Well said, Crimson.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And, for the final time - can people stop creating strawman arguments? It gets really, really tiresome to argue against.. I didnt say you couldnt model them so they are correct as per the supplied model - which is one fitted with swords/ What you cannot do is claim that an Axe is wysiwyg, because the supplied model never comes with an axe.

And this is where I disagree! Just because the box doesn't come with an axe doesn't mean you can't have an axe by the rules. The rules say you can have 2 power weapons. You are free to choose two swords or two axes or two mauls. In order to by WYSIWYG, you need to model them as such. I would even support you having one sword and one axe, although I can see where people might cringe at that. But hey...the rules say "power weapon" and the guy IS an assassin. If you want to be technical about using "Citadel Miniatures" then you need to use a citadel miniature bit to do the kit bash. It doesn't say you have to use the model straight out of the box.

Grugknuckle wrote: You are free to choose two swords or two axes or two mauls

No. Wrong. The rules DO NOT say that. The rules say that, if you have no listed type, look at the model

It does NOT say you can make the model look however you like. If it does do that, please provide an actual rule.

The central problem of the discussion is that Nos does not feel that the Hobby section is relevant to the argument.

Fact: There are no rules/guidelines/instructions for assembly, painting or conversion in the Rules section.

Fact: There are rules/guidelines/instructions for assembly, painting or conversion in the Hobby section.

My Conclusion: The Hobby section of the Rulebook may be intended to show us how to assemble, paint and convert our miniatures in a manner consistent with the rules.

Redbeard wrote:

Grugknuckle wrote:Wow. If the only way to win is for you to a take narrow rules interpretation in order to restrict the way that your opponent plays with his PLASTIC TOY SOILDERS, I think you've missed the point.

Who said anything about restricting an opponent. I believe that the sportsmanlike approach to questions like these is to take the more conservative approach until given explicit go-ahead by GW.

Nos insists that death cult assasins can only have power swords because that's what the box comes with. IMO, this is restricting your opponent (if he brought a DCA modeled with a power weapon other than a sword of course.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

liturgies of blood wrote: even citadel glue to ensure it's cool.

lol

Uh oh, I used milliput instead of green-stuff. Is my stuff still tournament legal? I used sand from the hardware store to base my mini's instead of Citadel texture paint. Darn, I'm using Vallejo paint. I guess I'm going to get disqualified at the GT.

Seriously. I'm with liturgies of blood. What's the problem?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Grugknuckle wrote: You are free to choose two swords or two axes or two mauls

No. Wrong. The rules DO NOT say that. The rules say that, if you have no listed type, look at the model

It does NOT say you can make the model look however you like. If it does do that, please provide an actual rule.

No. I'm right. If I build the model with two axes, it will have two axes when you look at it. They are power weapons! You get to pick which.

And besides, no matter how you choose to do it either option is still weaker than the 5th edition, "Ignores Armor Saves". So what is the big deal?

Grugknuckle wrote:

Redbeard wrote:

Grugknuckle wrote:Wow. If the only way to win is for you to a take narrow rules interpretation in order to restrict the way that your opponent plays with his PLASTIC TOY SOILDERS, I think you've missed the point.

Who said anything about restricting an opponent. I believe that the sportsmanlike approach to questions like these is to take the more conservative approach until given explicit go-ahead by GW.

Nos insists that death cult assasins can only have power swords because that's what the box comes with. IMO, this is restricting your opponent (if he brought a DCA modeled with a power weapon other than a sword of course.)

Because this is what GW has shown us how they seem to be interpreting it with the LYNCHGUARD change. If they intended that anymodel with a powerweapon may have any weapon as valid weapon options, they could have said that but they didn't. You don't have a powerweapon of your choice, you have a powerweapon of what the model comes with, which is SWORDS for LYCHGUARD and SWORDS for DCA. It is IMPLIED we have the freedom to modify models to CHOOSE what to give them so by time the rule for pwoer weapons kick in, you have a mace or axe or whatever. Nothing says it is a valid weapon option where a DCA may take a power sword or power axe or powermaul. It doesn't have those weapon options... Those are implied NON-rules relying on converting a model.

So for now: Your model better be WYSIWYG if you intend to claim these different powerweapons, no proxies... and you better prepare to have your models invalidated by an FAQ, Digital update or whatever at any time.

People are complaining about the big bad DCA's bringing 2 diffrent types of power weapons to the field so that they are prepared for any circumstance. Thats what this appears to really boil down to.

And before Nos says "Well now since they have an axe and a sword they have no weakness" Wrong. Sword is AP3 meaning TDA is still valid against hem. Axe drops you to I1 so you strike after models in TDA. Weakness and balance found.

It's lychguard btw.

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:People are complaining about the big bad DCA's bringing 2 diffrent types of power weapons to the field so that they are prepared for any circumstance. Thats what this appears to really boil down to.

And before Nos says "Well now since they have an axe and a sword they have no weakness" Wrong. Sword is AP3 meaning TDA is still valid against hem. Axe drops you to I1 so you strike after models in TDA. Weakness and balance found.

I don't think anyone gives a crap about balance... this has more to do with the dozens of UNDEFINED power weapons and how some models are clearly modeled with a specific kind of weapon and the ambiguity of 'is every powerweapon any powerweapon' or do we go by what 'the model' has and if 'the model' refers to the stock model or a converted model.

LYCHGUARD has shown that for those models, they referred to the stock models visual representation. Since they didn't explicitly give everyone everyweapon, it sounds like many other models may get their weapon loadout explicitly defined down the road based upon the stock model's options.

I don't think anyone cares about the balance issues... Just the complete ambiguity of leaving the rule up to the visual representation instead of just simply explicitly saying everyweapon is anyweapon.

nkelsch wrote:LYCHGUARD has shown that for those models, they referred to the stock models visual representation. Since they didn't explicitly give everyone everyweapon, it sounds like many other models may get their weapon loadout explicitly defined down the road based upon the stock model's options.

Except they went the other way in other FAQ rulings:

Codex: Blood Angels wrote:Var – Power Swords
In the bestiary and army list, replace all references to “power
sword” with “power weapon”.

nkelsch wrote:

Because this is what GW has shown us how they seem to be interpreting it with the LYNCHGUARD change. If they intended that anymodel with a powerweapon may have any weapon as valid weapon options, they could have said that but they didn't. You don't have a powerweapon of your choice, you have a powerweapon of what the model comes with, which is SWORDS for LYCHGUARD and SWORDS for DCA.

I'm not seeing any entry in the Necron FAQ about Lychguard except the one about dispersion shields. But I could be missing it. Can you show me what you're referring to?

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2420315a_Necron_6th_Ed_V1.pdf

It's in the Digital version of the codex, iirc.

Love how pretre brings an air of sanity to this. Ambiguity is a matter of perspective. I see it as black and white. If the model has a sword, its a sword, if a moedl has an axe, it has an axe. If a model has a lance its an lance, so on and so fourth. There is no grey. You model them with the weapon you want them to have, just like always. Just now, you arent picking a wepaon from the codex, rather from the main rulebook like in WHFB.

This may be the first time someone brought me up as a bastion of sanity.

It's in the Digital version of the codex, iirc.

Digital Codex!? Does that mean that you can only have up to date rules if you own an iPad? Jeez, one monopoly isn't enough for GW, they want you to feed Apple's too.

Ok...This might be a different thread, but it's an example of modelling something that doesn't come stock. Remember when people were scratch building nightscythes and thunderwolf cavalry because GW had not released those miniatures? What do you do then?

Here's another...How do you model Mark of the Wulfen? Is this one legal?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/374214-.html?m=2

So, in otherwords, GW didnt cause enough of a stir with the last stealth re-print, so they have to do it again. Why is it always the crons? This is going to feth up so many YMDC disscussions....

TH/SS termies, THE termies of 5th and still THE termies of 6th, strike at the same time. Any other non-GK termie that goes through terrain. Balance still lacking.

Vindicare-Obsession wrote: You model them with the weapon you want them to have, just like always. Just now, you arent picking a wepaon from the codex, rather from the main rulebook like in WHFB.

That's not what the rule says:
Page 61.
"If a model's wargear says it has a power weapon which has no further special rules, look at the rnodel to tell which type of power weapon it has"

It doesn't say:
"If a model's wargear says it has a power weapon which has no further special rules, you may choose any of the following types of power weapon as long as you model it"

nkelsch wrote:

Vindicare-Obsession wrote: You model them with the weapon you want them to have, just like always. Just now, you arent picking a wepaon from the codex, rather from the main rulebook like in WHFB.

That's not what the rule says:
Page 61.
"If a model's wargear says it has a power weapon which has no further special rules, look at the rnodel to tell which type of power weapon it has"

It doesn't say:
"If a model's wargear says it has a power weapon which has no further special rules, you may choose any of the following types of power weapon as long as you model it"

It also doesn't say 'Look at the official model'. It is ambiguous.

No, instead you model it to "choose" as you so eloquently put it.
becuase guess what...
When I look to see what power weapon it has.....
It has the one I modeled!!!
Nowhere does it say, look at the power weapon the model came with.
Khorne Berzerkers come with axes and swords, which do I use?

nkelsch wrote:
That's not what the rule says:
Page 61.
"If a model's wargear says it has a power weapon which has no further special rules, look at the rnodel to tell which type of power weapon it has"

It doesn't say:
"If a model's wargear says it has a power weapon which has no further special rules, you may choose any of the following types of power weapon as long as you model it"

It depends on what you mean by "model". When I read that, I think of the model after it has been assembled. You are interpreting that as the box art on the model kit? Or the model as pictured in the instructions?

I don't see how that can be right. A box of space wolves does not come with a flamer or a meltagun. Yet the codex entry clearly allows you to take those in your squad. Now you claim that to model a space wolf with a meltagun is MFA. I completely disagree. It is the same for a vanilla space marine. The seargent can have a power weapon, but the model kit only comes with a sword. However, he CAN take the axe from the space wolves box and model it onto his ultramarine. Now when you're playing the game, you look at the assembled model to see what kind of power weapon he has. It's an axe, so S = user +1 AP2.

pretre wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Vindicare-Obsession wrote: You model them with the weapon you want them to have, just like always. Just now, you arent picking a wepaon from the codex, rather from the main rulebook like in WHFB.

That's not what the rule says:
Page 61.
"If a model's wargear says it has a power weapon which has no further special rules, look at the rnodel to tell which type of power weapon it has"

It doesn't say:
"If a model's wargear says it has a power weapon which has no further special rules, you may choose any of the following types of power weapon as long as you model it"

It also doesn't say 'Look at the official model'. It is ambiguous.

It does on page 2.

Vindicare - that argument has already been answered - you are given 2 options in the model set, so you choose. Please show the model options given when you buy the DCA model. Does it come with axes?

It does should I desire to convert them which is allowed in the modeling section of the RULEBOOK. You cannot arbitrarily rip out parts of the rulebook and say they dont matter. Oh, well since im playing necrons I hate to get assaulted, so in that case the assault section of the rulebook is just fun storytime. It dosent matter. That is not how it works.

You tlak about permissive rules, show me where oyu are permitted to ignore the modeling section of the rulebook. Quote the rule, otherwise your arguments are invalid.

nosferatu1001 wrote:It does on page 2.

It doesn't say 'unmodified model' either.

Page 2 only says that the term models in the book refers to Citadel Miniatures. Not that those miniatures can or cannot be assembled, painted, converted or melted down into new forms.

Model set argument is flawed, I'll bring in another army into this, as it's the only one I'm familiar with:

DE codex says I could take a venom blade on hekatrix, there is no venom blade in the model set, hence by that same logic, my codex is illegal.

But I believe this is the case for almost every box they made. Hint: They want you to either buy the extra bits(should they be available), or another box or 4 just to get enough of the guns legally allowed to bring per codex.

And where do you stand on people converting existing models to be HQ that GW hasn't made available? Such as hellion to baron? Since conversions are only for rule of cool, then that means my baron conversion is just a fancy hellion, right? Since there is no official baron kit. The codex lied again!!

But at the end of the day, what I really want to ask is... What advantage are DCA gaining specifically that warrants a 6 pages argument?

Baronyu wrote: What advantage are DCA gaining specifically that warrants a 6 pages argument?

As has been said aptly by nkelsch, it isn't about advantage. It is about playing by the rules.

DCA seem to be the only once capable of ignoring TDA while still retaining normal combat capabilities in different combat.

I still want Nos to respond to my post btw (making sure it dosent get buried like some do)

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:DCA seem to be the only once capable of ignoring TDA while still retaining normal combat capabilities in different combat.

Maybe as a unit, but many sergeants and characters can take double power weapons and choose different forms.

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:It does should I desire to convert them which is allowed in the modeling section of the RULEBOOK. You cannot arbitrarily rip out parts of the rulebook and say they dont matter. Oh, well since im playing necrons I hate to get assaulted, so in that case the assault section of the rulebook is just fun storytime. It dosent matter. That is not how it works.

You tlak about permissive rules, show me where oyu are permitted to ignore the modeling section of the rulebook. Quote the rule, otherwise your arguments are invalid.

Wong. My book is called "Warhammer 40000". It is not called a rulebook.

It DOES have a section in it called "THE RULES", which defines the rules for playing the game of warhammer 40,000. It also has a hobby section which defines....dun dun dun!! the hobby section of the warhammer 40,000 universe. It also has a background section.

If you are claiming all these sections are rules in this "rulebook" that you have created out of thin air, hell you capitalised it, i bet you have proof it is called a rulebook?

I'll wait. Some rules form you ths thread would be good.

Pretre - again, it doesnt say you CAN modify them, so you CANNOT. Permissive ruleset.

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:DCA seem to be the only once capable of ignoring TDA while still retaining normal combat capabilities in different combat.

He is an assassin after all. Isn't he supposed to be some kind of close combat ninja?

nosferatu1001 wrote:If you are claiming all these sections are rules in this "rulebook" that you have created out of thin air, hell you capitalised it, i bet you have proof it is called a rulebook?

Games Workshop wrote:Warhammer 40,000: Rulebook
There is no time for peace. No respite. No forgiveness.

There is only WAR.

In the nightmare future of the 41st Millennium, Mankind teeters upon the brink of destruction. The galaxy-spanning Imperium of Man is beset on all sides by ravening aliens and threatened from within by Warp-spawned entities and heretical plots. Only the strength of the immortal Emperor of Terra stands between humanity and its annihilation, and in his name, countless warriors and agents do battle against the encroaching darkness. Foremost amongst them stand the Space Marines, the ultimate protectors of Mankind.

Across airless moons, within the depths of dark, twisted hive worlds and even in the immaterial realm of Warp space, battles rage that will shape the future of the galaxy forever.
It is a universe that you can enter today, if you dare. But remember that this is a dark and terrible era, and there is no peace amongst the stars...

The Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook is your essential guide to playing atmospheric battles in the 41st Millennium. It helps you field majestic armies of Citadel miniatures across the war-ravaged battlefields of the far-future, in the ultimate contest of strategy and skill.

With 452 full-colour pages, this hardback Rulebook is packed with rich background and contains all the rules for fighting pulse-pounding tabletop battles. The Rulebook includes exciting features such as dynamic close-combat, flyers, psychic devastation and interactive scenery. As well as jaw-dropping artwork, contained within is a history of the 41st Millennium and a richly detailed guide to the races and weapons of the far-future. It also features a comprehensive hobby section to set you on the path to choosing, collecting and building your own Warhammer 40,000 army of Citadel miniatures.

Emphasis mine.

Pretre - again, it doesnt say you CAN modify them, so you CANNOT. Permissive ruleset.

nos - again, it doesn't say you CAN assemble them, so you CANNOT. Permissive ruleset.

pretre wrote:

Baronyu wrote: What advantage are DCA gaining specifically that warrants a 6 pages argument?

As has been said aptly by nkelsch, it isn't about advantage. It is about playing by the rules.

Really? That's their whole issue with it?!

I thought they were "terrified" by the thought of DCA's ability to table them, with a single unit, should they be allowed to bring an axe and a sword...

Well, I don't personally see anything wrong with "if it says power weapon, model whatever you want", looks to me that's by the rules.

Is that from the rulebook, or the website? My rulebook does not have that written in it.

Again, you use CM minis, and those CM minis show you how to assemble them as CM minis. Permission already granted

It does NOT say you can convert them.

It comes down to this: certain conversions will be accpeted, as they do not bring an advantage in game PURELY from the conversion

This gives an undeiable ingame advantage over the actual model supplied by GW, and so will be denied more often that not

You have no rules argument, you havent had one since the start.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Baronyu wrote:

pretre wrote:

Baronyu wrote: What advantage are DCA gaining specifically that warrants a 6 pages argument?

As has been said aptly by nkelsch, it isn't about advantage. It is about playing by the rules.

Really? That's their whole issue with it?!

I thought they were "terrified" by the thought of DCA's ability to table them, with a single unit, should they be allowed to bring an axe and a sword...

Well, I don't personally see anything wrong with "if it says power weapon, model whatever you want", looks to me that's by the rules.

Nope, wrong. The rules dont say that, as you would have known if youd read the thread.

Well, I don't personally see anything wrong with "if it says power weapon, model whatever you want", looks to me that's by the rules.

+1 . Seriously. Who wants to play with someone who is quoting rules at you every 10 seconds? Play by the rules. But PLAY. It means have fun.

If you show up to a tournament which you have paid hundreds of dollars to attend with an army which you have spent thousands of dollars and thousands of hours to paint and assemble and then your first opponent says, "You're army is illegal because your DCA has axes instead of swords," you would be furious. Having two axes confers no advantage over have two swords.

nosferatu1001 wrote:If you are claiming all these sections are rules in this "rulebook" that you have created out of thin air, hell you capitalised it, i bet you have proof it is called a rulebook?

I'll wait. Some rules form you ths thread would be good.

From the GW website, direct quote, you can even check behind me, Warhammer 40,000: Rulebook

Now, how about you cite some specific rules agiainst conversion instead of spouting "Permissive" constantly, because in a permissive ruleset you cannot build your models, paint them, or even enter a tournament (tournaments arent in the rulbook are they?) nor can you lead one. You want permissive? Tell me where in the rulebook it says, you have permission to own a Warhammer 40,000 rulebook.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Is that from the rulebook, or the website? My rulebook does not have that written in it.

Again, you use CM minis, and those CM minis show you how to assemble them as CM minis. Permission already granted

It does NOT say you can convert them.

The rules do not support assembly. If we're going by Citadel publications for how to assemble them, then what about the conversion kits on their website? That is a clear indication that Citadel allows conversions.
http://search.games-workshop.com/search/keywords-conversion--locale-us--res_per_page-100

It comes down to this: certain conversions will be accpeted, as they do not bring an advantage in game PURELY from the conversion

This gives an undeiable ingame advantage over the actual model supplied by GW, and so will be denied more often that not

I don't think you can speak for all TOs and other players. It is clear from the poll that you don't speak for all players. It is a matter of time before we know if you speak for all TOs.

MVB says that this is an allowed conversion and he runs Nova: http://nova.tlsconline.com/showthread.php?t=205

pretre wrote:Is it permitted to field DCA (or any model) that is listed in the Codex as having a Power Weapon with any of the listed variants in the Main Rulebook?

So, for example, can I modify stock DCA to have Axe/Sword. This would allow me to choose at the start of the fight sub-phase which weapon to fight with.

MVB wrote:Yes. You must clarify what each model has as required on your army list, however.

You have no rules argument, you havent had one since the start.

And you have no argument from the rules section of the book that you are allowed or not allowed to assemble, convert or paint miniatures. You haven't from the start.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, you use CM minis, and those CM minis show you how to assemble them as CM minis. Permission already granted

It does NOT say you can convert them.

Not all Citadel Miniatures come with assembling instructions, and I don't get why those instructions matter anyway. I mean they're not in the rules section of the book either. Why would those have any relevance if the modelling section of the book doesn't?

vindicare - so, does your book say that? Mine doesnt.

And, again. I dont have to show rules against conversion, you have to show rules FOR them. I wont waste time answering your more facetious questions.

If people are seriously claiming the HOBBY section, as distinct from the RULES section count as rules, then so does the background. Doom is auto win against certain Eldar builds now! Necrons vs sisters is autowin to the Necron.

Later. When people can show any relevant rules it may be worth posting more.

There is no set anything besides past events in the background. Background tells a story, that much is obvious and fluff is not an argument in YMDC

I like you nos. Your arguments are almost always well constructed an make sense, and so I respect you as a player and a TO. I've even read your posts and almost always agreed with you in YMDC but this is crazy. I am willing to conceed an argument if the counter argument is valid, constructed and well thought out, but this is none of those things.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And, again. I dont have to show rules against conversion, you have to show rules FOR them. I wont waste time answering your more facetious questions.

Rules for conversion are in the exact same place than the rules for assembling the models. That is either the hobby section or nowhere depending of your interpretation.

And you do not answer the question about the permission to assemble models, as you know you don't have a leg to stand on. Either you can't play because you can't assemble your models, or you allow conversions. There are no other logical options.

nosferatu1001 wrote:And, again. I dont have to show rules against conversion, you have to show rules FOR them. I wont waste time answering your more facetious questions.

I am not being facetious. I am completely serious. There are the same number of rules for converting as there are for assembling and painting.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Please provide a RULES ALLOWANCE to alter that Citadel Miniature to be a non-citadel miniature by altering its appearance. If you cannot do so, please confirm that here. Continuing to argue that this is allowed, when you have yet to provide rules to the affirmative, breaks the tenets of this forum.

So the Blood Angels Death company can only ever have 1 Power weapon per five guys (And that has to be a Power Sword) Because that is all that comes with the box of Death Company?

The rules in the Blood Angels Dex P.88 Disagree with you.

"Any Death Company can replace their bolt pistol and/or chainsword with: - a power weapon..."

nosferatu1001 wrote:DR - yep, correct. Well, one has a sword, which can certainly be a power sword (internal, hilt PSU) so you know which weapon it is armed with

In the Pic I posted, the one with the single sword Is most definitely a power sword, due to the Power node on the blade, but what about its other power weapon? Where is that modeled?

The Model on the left has two non-power weapons, it is Illegal as well.

Are the models for the DCA illegal?

The GK book list the DCA as having Power Weapons. the rules state power weapons are one of four things.

Either way I think the Poll says a lot about this matter. Most people will not have an issue with it.

Crimson wrote:

Rules for conversion are in the exact same place than the rules for assembling the models. That is either the hobby section or nowhere depending of your interpretation.

]

Rules on page 2, instructions supplied by CM that a model is completed from parts (also defined in English, which is where you go to when the rules dont define it for you)

crimson wrote:And you do not answer the question about the permission to assemble models, as you know you don't have a leg to stand on.

I've repeatedy answered, and it has been repeatedly ignored.

crimson wrote:Either you can't play because you can't assemble your models, or you allow conversions. There are no other logical options.

False dichotomy is false.

DR - buy more than one box, then your unit will have the right equipment on it.

Again, apparently people cannot be bothered to read the thread, nor have you posted any rules. See the tenets ofYMDC

Let's not forget Vanguard Veterans and Sternguard Veterans. You can only take two 2 plasma pistols, two power swords, and a relic blade for you VV. It does not matter that your codex allows you to buy other options, as that is they way GW modelled them.

Same goes for Sternguard.

I know this is an extreme and facetious example, but taking Nos' extrapolation to the nth degree leaves me no choice.

I don't even know which army this assassin is used for and I would allow him to have an axe and a sword. I would allow my opponent to use an axe +1 CCW one turn and a sword +1 CCW the next in the same game. In the realm of GW's brokeness, this is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY at the bottom.

It boggles the mind that anyone can actually argue that converting models to show wargear options explicitly permitted by their rulebook and/or codex is illegal. Talk about obstinate. This has got to be the most absurdly stupid thread in the history of YMDC, and that's saying something.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I've repeatedy answered, and it has been repeatedly ignored.

You've repeatedly quoted non-Rule section sources for permission to assemble and paint models. Page 2 does not give permission to assemble or paint your models.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rules on page 2, instructions supplied by CM that a model is completed from parts (also defined in English, which is where you go to when the rules dont define it for you)

It does only say that the game is played with Citadel miniatures, that's all. The idea that a converted miniature is no longer a Citadel miniature is purely your invention. Also, I have no idea why instructions that come with (some) models would have any more bearing than the hobby section of the book.

Speaking of conversions...I have seen those "my little pony" space marines in tournament. Albeit, small local tournaments.

How does that sit with you?

pretre wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:I've repeatedy answered, and it has been repeatedly ignored.

You've repeatedly quoted non-Rule section sources for permission to assemble and paint models. Page 2 does not give permission to assemble or paint your models.

Find a rules definition of "the", then "a" .

I have not talked about painted models since you first brought this up, and agreed that nothing allows you to paint them. Or have you forgotten?

Danny - the options arent given in the codex, they tell you to look to the model FIRST then that tells you waht it is armed with. It does not give you permission to convert the model to look like what you want in the first place.

Crimson - it is no longer the DCA Citadel Mini. I can show you pics of wht that looks like. Its a very basic concept


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grugknuckle wrote:Speaking of conversions...I have seen those "my little pony" space marines in tournament. Albeit, small local tournaments.

How does that sit with you?

Continuing strawmans there. Amusingly the same one that was already tried.

You do understand the difference between conversions that rovide no advantage, and those that do? Its quite a simple concept.

nosferatu1001 wrote:DR - buy more than one box, then your unit will have the right equipment on it.

Again, apparently people cannot be bothered to read the thread, nor have you posted any rules. See the tenets ofYMDC

So the Blood Angels Death company can only ever have 1 Power weapon per five guys (And that has to be a Power Sword) Because that is all that comes with the box of Death Company?

The rules in the Blood Angels Dex P.88 Disagree with you.

"Any Death Company can replace their bolt pistol and/or chainsword with: - a power weapon..."

There are your rules.

I bought 1 box of death company. By your interpretation I can only buy 1 power weapon on them, and the rules disagree with that interpretation.

Illogical leap there DR

The rules say you can use CM. It does not say you can only use 1 box of 5 DC to make 5 DC.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Find a rules definition of "the", then "a" .

Those aren't actions that impact play. Converting and assembling are actions that impact play.

I have not talked about painted models since you first brought this up, and agreed that nothing allows you to paint them. Or have you forgotten?

My bad on painting, but it doesn't change the point. There is no rules support for Assembly or Converting, and yet they are part of the game as evidenced by both the Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook (Hobby Section) and the Citadel Miniatures product lines (Miniatures and Conversion Kits).

Danny - the options arent given in the codex, they tell you to look to the model FIRST then that tells you waht it is armed with. It does not give you permission to convert the model to look like what you want in the first place.

It also does not give permission to assemble those miniatures.

Crimson - it is no longer the DCA Citadel Mini. I can show you pics of wht that looks like. Its a very basic concept

There are many minis in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook that are converted and not stock. Does that make them non-citadel miniatures?

Pretre - so being unable to know what "the" means because it isnt within the rulenbook, as you claim ALL rules must be, wouldnt affect play?

Interesting but flawed argument.


Edit: re minis. I have already answered that about 36 times. It makes them no longer the Citadel mini for X, but a converted mini for X using Citadel Miniature parts

Again, not a tricky concept.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Crimson - it is no longer the DCA Citadel Mini. I can show you pics of wht that looks like. Its a very basic concept

I claim that models assembled from Citadel parts are in fact Citadel miniatures as meant by the rules. Yes, it is not that exact same Citadel DCA model anymore (neither of which are strictly speaking rules legal without a conversion anyway) but it still is a Citadel miniature.

Oh, and by your interpretation how much from the printed instructions can one deviate from until the models became illegal? Can I put an arm into a different position than shown in the picture or does it make it 'not a Citadel miniature'? And what about combinations from a single kit that are not shown in the instructions? They do not show pictures of all possible combinations, that would be impossible. I guess we cannot use those then, no? And some miniatures don't even come with instuctions. I guess those are just illegal too.

And i don't even get why we care about these printed instuctions anyway, if we don't care about the hobby section... neither are rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Pretre - so being unable to know what "the" means because it isnt within the rulenbook, as you claim ALL rules must be, wouldnt affect play?

Interesting but flawed argument.

You are the one who said that you can't convert because it is not contained in the rules. I am only applying your same logic to another, very similar, process. If assembly is not covered in the rules, you cannot do it.

You are trying to change the subject by going for definitions of the and a.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Edit: re minis. I have already answered that about 36 times. It makes them no longer the Citadel mini for X, but a converted mini for X using Citadel Miniature parts

Again, not a tricky concept.

So GW, who owns Citadel, is showing us in their own rulebook examples of models that do not follow the rules?

No, I am trying to poiint out that the rulebook is not inclusive, so when it points to the use of Citadel Minis, which are defined as being made from parts, you are allowed to know what that means.

Again, any rules? Any at all? None, as usual.

Bye all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: theyre showing you in the hobby section what you can do with the models you purchase

Nothing says they remain game legal

Shock.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, I am trying to poiint out that the rulebook is not inclusive, so when it points to the use of Citadel Minis, which are defined as being made from parts, you are allowed to know what that means.

And why are you allowed to define it? The category of Citadel minis could also be interpreted to mean Miniatures made from Citadel parts. It is not defined, so you are just assuming what it means.

Again, any rules? Any at all? None, as usual.

Bye all.

You keep falling back on this and then provide no rules of your own. It gets tiring.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, I am trying to poiint out that the rulebook is not inclusive, so when it points to the use of Citadel Minis, which are defined as being made from parts, you are allowed to know what that means.

Yes, we know exactly what it means and we know what to do with those parts. Why? It is told us in the HOBBY SECTION!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:And why are you allowed to define it? The category of Citadel minis could also be interpreted to mean Miniatures made from Citadel parts. It is not defined, so you are just assuming what it means.

Yes, and with one interpretation a large chunk of the miniatures pictured in the book are illegal, and there is a section about creating illegal miniatures. With the other interpretation this is not the case. A reasonable person might be able to conclude something from this.

Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, I am trying to poiint out that the rulebook is not inclusive, so when it points to the use of Citadel Minis, which are defined as being made from parts, you are allowed to know what that means.

Yes, we know exactly what it means and we know what to do with those parts. Why? It is told us in the HOBBY SECTION!


...as seperate from the section handily entitled "THE RULES"

Shocknig that one would expect to find rules in the rules section...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:And why are you allowed to define it? The category of Citadel minis could also be interpreted to mean Miniatures made from Citadel parts. It is not defined, so you are just assuming what it means.

Yes, and with one interpretation a large chunk of the miniatures pictured in the book are illegal, and there is a section about creating illegal miniatures. With the other interpretation this is not the case. A reasonable person might be able to conclude something from this.

That warhammer 40,000 isnt just a game, but a hobby as well? There is a whole section on GD entries as well, are you claiming those are game legal?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Illogical leap there DR

The rules say you can use CM. It does not say you can only use 1 box of 5 DC to make 5 DC.

Ok so Combi Melta's on Sternguard are illegal?

Or putting anything other than a Bolter and a Power Sword on your AOBR Captain is illegal?

By the rules these things are allowed.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Danny - the options arent given in the codex, they tell you to look to the model FIRST then that tells you waht it is armed with. It does not give you permission to convert the model to look like what you want in the first place.

Ok, so how about answering the question asked and ignored way back towards the start of the thread:

Looking at the two DCA models GW currently provides, which two power weapons do they have?

One model has a single power sword. What is the second power weapon?
The other has two unpowered swords. What power weapons does it have?

There's actually a number of example pictures in the rules section that have models with options not provided in the kit, i.e. conversions.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
...as seperate from the section handily entitled "THE RULES"

Shocknig that one would expect to find rules in the rules section...

I want to see the rules quote that tells us how to assemble our miniatures. Yes, we can extrapolate from the rules text that the models probably need to be assembled... somehow, but there is no actual rules that tell us how. I want to see the danm rules for that!

Give us your process of building a rules legal Citadel miniature, with reasoning and rules quote for every step.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Again straw man

Two, distinctly different rules at play

1) You can model the upgrades you are allowed
2) You look at the model to determine what weapon it has

The rules ARE CLEAR on this. You build the model as supplied by Citadel Miniatures. The DCA does not come with power axes, meaning you have no permission to place power axes on the model

If you disagree, provide actual rules.

I can not find this rule anywhere which you seem to say is CLEAR.

You actually build the model as allowed by what its rules entry says it is legally able to carry. If the rule was was as you state, Grey Hunter packs could never be equipped with melta guns. However, because the rules entry allows them to be equipped with melta guns, I am therefore allowed to model them.

The same applies to DCA. They may come from Citadel armed with swords/sword/dagger, but by their rules entry they are armed with power weapons. Swords are not the default power weapon for DCA, but instead that which is modeled on the DCA will fulfill the rules entry for power weapon.

Grugknuckle wrote:Speaking of conversions...I have seen those "my little pony" space marines in tournament. Albeit, small local tournaments.

How does that sit with you?

Continuing strawmans there. Amusingly the same one that was already tried.

You do understand the difference between conversions that rovide no advantage, and those that do? Its quite a simple concept.

It's only a 'strawman' argument if I some how insinuate that you made this argument. I'm not doing that dude. I'm simply asking you how you feel about using miniatures that were not citadel - since this is the rule you like to quote - and provide the ponies (heretics!) as an example. I'm not trying to impugn your character. Please provide me the same respect.

Can we leave the ponies out of it and start a new pony thread?

Toddler walking into the freeway here but two honest questions:

1) If you give the DCA one power axe and one power sword wouldn't it loose its +1 for a second CC weapon? One would have the unwieldy rule and to get the second attack both would need the unwieldy rule.

2) Where does the rules specify what a model is at all? I could use WHFB Skaven assasins for DCA if I wanted to. It just has to be a GW miniture and be on the right base.

Ok back to the flame war.

Actually, show me a rule that says you can't model for advantage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:Can we leave the ponies out of it and start a new pony thread?

It's an example of non-citadel mini's and conversions used in tournament play. So it is relevant. But, yes I don't want them to take over this thread either.

Gloomfang wrote:Toddler walking into the freeway here but two honest questions:

1) If you give the DCA one power axe and one power sword wouldn't it loose its +1 for a second CC weapon? One would have the unwieldy rule and to get the second attack both would need the unwieldy rule.

2) Where does the rules specify what a model is at all? I could use WHFB Skaven assasins for DCA if I wanted to. It just has to be a GW miniture and be on the right base.

Ok back to the flame war.

1) Axes, mauls, swords and lances don't have Specialist Weapon (unwieldy just makes you swing at I1 if you use it. SpecWep takes away the +1 att).
2) Models are defined on page 2 as Citadel Miniatures. Beyond that, there is no definition.

pretre wrote:2) Models are defined on page 2 as Citadel Miniatures. Beyond that, there is no definition.

They also refer to the miniatures as representing the particular troop types. So the inference is that they simply assume that people will use the 'correct' model for whatever they are fielding.


Which is exactly, in my opinion, what allows conversions. If we're supposed to be fielding models that actually represent what they are supposed to be, then conversions are not only allowed but in fact required where there is no official model to represent the unit we are using.

And since neither of the official DCA models are legal within their current rules, we would by extension be required to convert them to adequately represent what they are supposed to be.

insaniak wrote:

pretre wrote:2) Models are defined on page 2 as Citadel Miniatures. Beyond that, there is no definition.

They also refer to the miniatures as representing the particular troop types. So the inference is that they simply assume that people will use the 'correct' model for whatever they are fielding.

Which is exactly, in my opinion, what allows conversions. If we're supposed to be fielding models that actually represent what they are supposed to be, then conversions are not only allowed but in fact required where there is no official model to represent the unit we are using.

Agreed. I think that it is definitely indicated that we would need to assemble and convert minis appropriately to use in the game.

And since neither of the official DCA models are legal within their current rules, we would by extension be required to convert them to adequately represent what they are supposed to be.

Yep. I skipped around this by just using Wyches as my base and adding power weapons and removing spikes.

Gloomfang wrote:
2) Where does the rules specify what a model is at all? I could use WHFB Skaven assasins for DCA if I wanted to. It just has to be a GW miniture and be on the right base.

This is an excellent point. Some codecies don't even have GW models for all of their units. So you can't say, that the wording "look at the model" means look at the model kit. It MUST mean look at the assembled model. Therefore, since I must assemble the model to by WYSIWYG I must assemble it with a power weapon. POWER WEAPON! Because that is what the codex says it is armed with. Which power weapon should I assemble it with?

The answer is whichever one you want. If instead the answer was the power sword that comes in the box, then the codex would say "power sword" instead of "power weapon".

Insaniak - one is certainly legal. Ther eis no wysiwyg rule in 40k, outside of eldar and codex requirements to model upgrades.

insaniak wrote:

pretre wrote:2) Models are defined on page 2 as Citadel Miniatures. Beyond that, there is no definition.

They also refer to the miniatures as representing the particular troop types. So the inference is that they simply assume that people will use the 'correct' model for whatever they are fielding.


Which is exactly, in my opinion, what allows conversions. If we're supposed to be fielding models that actually represent what they are supposed to be, then conversions are not only allowed but in fact required where there is no official model to represent the unit we are using.

And since neither of the official DCA models are legal within their current rules, we would by extension be required to convert them to adequately represent what they are supposed to be.

+1

So, let me get this right...

People are saying that you can only use what come with the model ?

So my battlewagon is illegal to use since it has rokkits and is bigger than a regular battle wagon?

I didnt model it for advantage, I modeled it cause I thought it would look cooler bigger and I wanted rokkits, since my codex allows it to have up to 4 and the box set does not come with any.

Danny Internets wrote:It boggles the mind that anyone can actually argue that converting models to show wargear options explicitly permitted by their rulebook and/or codex is illegal. Talk about obstinate. This has got to be the most absurdly stupid thread in the history of YMDC, and that's saying something.

CDA do not explicitly have power axes... DCA are not explicitly allowed to have any form of power weapon permitted by their rulebook.

It is said they have what the model looks like. It is IMPLIED or ASSUMED that we can then choose to model the option however we wish.

It is ambiguous and an assumption which is far from explicit as people keep saying. It is 'legal' due to being ambiguous and when intent is not defined, we take advantage. Saying there is no hole in the rule means there is no need for an FAQ. Since they updated LYCHGUARD to be only swords, obviously the default rule is unclear as it doesn't allow Necron players to modify the stock citadel model and give them *ANY* powerweapon of their choice. This increases the ambiguity as they seem to apply a different standard to the one codex they have updated to differ from the implied rule being quoted of powerweapon = anyweapon.

You can say it works like this because the rule is ambiguous, that is a valid position. Saying the rules explicitly allow you to purchase a poweraxe as an explicit rulebook upgrade or because the rule explicitly allows you to make a choice of every powerweapon can be any power weapon is simply not true.

Dakkafang Dreggrim wrote:So, let me get this right...

People are saying that you can only use what come with the model ?

So my battlewagon is illegal to use since it has rokkits and is bigger than a regular battle wagon?

I didnt model it for advantage, I modeled it cause I thought it would look cooler bigger and I wanted rokkits, since my codex allows it to have up to 4 and the box set does not come with any.

[IMG]

You're clearly MFD(Modelling for disadvantage) here... Look damn awesome though.

EDIT: nkelsch, will you please stop bringing necron lychguard into this? They got updated to be power sword, end of story. Why are people so hung up over the hyperphase sword? I thought necrons have enough firepower to take down a million termies already... GW's inconsistency is another topic altogether.

The DCA argument here is the same as a SM sarge, the rule says "may exchange bolt pistol/CCW for a power weapon", does not say what he can bring, so you could give him a spear and say that it's a power spear. Similarly, DCA codex entry says they have two undefined power weapons, so they should be allowed to use any of the four. We simply cannot go by the "what's in the kit" rule, because by that logic, my archon can only use huskblade and soultrap despite the codex saying I have the options for EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE(bit of a hyperbole there, but almost everything non-coven DE).

pretre wrote:1) Axes, mauls, swords and lances don't have unwieldy.
2) Models are defined on page 2 as Citadel Miniatures. Beyond that, there is no definition.

Uhmm.. Yes power axes are +1S, AP2 and Unwieldy.

Dakkafang Dreggrim wrote:So, let me get this right...

People are saying that you can only use what come with the model ?

So my battlewagon is illegal to use since it has rokkits and is bigger than a regular battle wagon?

I didnt model it for advantage, I modeled it cause I thought it would look cooler bigger and I wanted rokkits, since my codex allows it to have up to 4 and the box set does not come with any.

Your battlewagon is illegal because it is oversized. I have seen oversized battlewagons explicitly banned from multiple tourneys including 'ard boyz. I have also seen where they ask the player to play as if it was the size of the stock model or ask them to show up with a stock model.

This model falls under 'rule of cool'. If you want to use it, you need opponent permission, if they have a problem with the advantage of a larger BW as you try to block LOS to stuff behind it or extend your KFF bubble, then they may complain and have legitimate reasons. Cooler your model looks, the less people complain, but no matter how you slice it, every time that BW hits the table it is opponents permission if they wish to play you or not. If you are doing it for abusive reasons, they may refuse.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Insaniak - one is certainly legal. Ther eis no wysiwyg rule in 40k, outside of eldar and codex requirements to model upgrades.

So which one are you seeing as legal?

Gloomfang wrote:

pretre wrote:1) Axes, mauls, swords and lances don't have unwieldy.
2) Models are defined on page 2 as Citadel Miniatures. Beyond that, there is no definition.

Uhmm.. Yes power axes are +1S, AP2 and Unwieldy.

Oh wait, he's confusing specialist weapon and unwieldy and I went right along with him.

The answer is that they don't have specialist weapon. I will edit my first response.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dakkafang Dreggrim wrote:So, let me get this right...

People are saying that you can only use what come with the model ?

So my battlewagon is illegal to use since it has rokkits and is bigger than a regular battle wagon?

I didnt model it for advantage, I modeled it cause I thought it would look cooler bigger and I wanted rokkits, since my codex allows it to have up to 4 and the box set does not come with any.

It doesn't look bigger than a normal battlewagon. Which dimension is it bigger in?

nkelsch wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:It boggles the mind that anyone can actually argue that converting models to show wargear options explicitly permitted by their rulebook and/or codex is illegal. Talk about obstinate. This has got to be the most absurdly stupid thread in the history of YMDC, and that's saying something.

CDA do not explicitly have power axes... DCA are not explicitly allowed to have any form of power weapon permitted by their rulebook.

It is said they have what the model looks like. It is IMPLIED or ASSUMED that we can then choose to model the option however we wish.

this.

There is no rule saying you can change your model to look like whatever you want.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:It boggles the mind that anyone can actually argue that converting models to show wargear options explicitly permitted by their rulebook and/or codex is illegal. Talk about obstinate. This has got to be the most absurdly stupid thread in the history of YMDC, and that's saying something.

CDA do not explicitly have power axes... DCA are not explicitly allowed to have any form of power weapon permitted by their rulebook.

It is said they have what the model looks like. It is IMPLIED or ASSUMED that we can then choose to model the option however we wish.

this.

There is no rule saying you can change your model to look like whatever you want.

There is also no rule saying that you cannot change your model to look like whatever you want.

insaniak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Insaniak - one is certainly legal. Ther eis no wysiwyg rule in 40k, outside of eldar and codex requirements to model upgrades.

So which one are you seeing as legal?

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:It boggles the mind that anyone can actually argue that converting models to show wargear options explicitly permitted by their rulebook and/or codex is illegal. Talk about obstinate. This has got to be the most absurdly stupid thread in the history of YMDC, and that's saying something.

CDA do not explicitly have power axes... DCA are not explicitly allowed to have any form of power weapon permitted by their rulebook.

It is said they have what the model looks like. It is IMPLIED or ASSUMED that we can then choose to model the option however we wish.

this.

There is no rule saying you can change your model to look like whatever you want.

There is also no rule saying that you cannot change your model to look like whatever you want.

Rules say what you can do. Otherwise I win on a 2+

pretre wrote:

Gloomfang wrote:

pretre wrote:1) Axes, mauls, swords and lances don't have unwieldy.
2) Models are defined on page 2 as Citadel Miniatures. Beyond that, there is no definition.

Uhmm.. Yes power axes are +1S, AP2 and Unwieldy.

Oh wait, he's confusing specialist weapon and unwieldy and I went right along with him.

The answer is that they don't have specialist weapon. I will edit my first response.

Thanks. All of this makes me glad Nids don't have power weapons.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

There is also no rule saying that you cannot change your model to look like whatever you want.

Rules say what you can do. Otherwise I win on a 2+

Not all rules are represented. Rules for assembly and conversion are clearly not and are part of the game. Some things are assumed to be part of the game. But you knew I was going to say this.

nkelsch wrote:CDA do not explicitly have power axes... DCA are not explicitly allowed to have any form of power weapon permitted by their rulebook.

It is said they have what the model looks like.

So, again, looking at the models (one with only a single power weapon, and one with none at all) which power weapons do they have?

Since they updated LYCHGUARD to be only swords, obviously the default rule is unclear as it doesn't allow Necron players to modify the stock citadel model and give them *ANY* powerweapon of their choice.

You keep bringing this up, but it was debunked pages ago. All that the Lychguard example proves is that they intended for the Lychguards' swords to be swords. The very fact that so many other units specifically had 'power sword' changed to 'power weapon' in the new FAQs says that they didn't intend the Lychguard to serve as any sort of game-wide example.

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

So without converting it, how are you going to specify what the second power weapon is?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dakkafang Dreggrim wrote:... But i dont understand how the whole changed the weapons thing may be illegal.

It's not.

The whole argument over the legality of conversions to swap weapons is one that you'll only ever see on the internet. In actual practice, nobody is ever going to disallow a model because you swapped a weapon for some other weapon that the model is legally allowed to have... unless it's a DCA, apparently.

nkelsch wrote:

Dakkafang Dreggrim wrote:So, let me get this right...

People are saying that you can only use what come with the model ?

So my battlewagon is illegal to use since it has rokkits and is bigger than a regular battle wagon?

I didnt model it for advantage, I modeled it cause I thought it would look cooler bigger and I wanted rokkits, since my codex allows it to have up to 4 and the box set does not come with any.

Your battlewagon is illegal because it is oversized. I have seen oversized battlewagons explicitly banned from multiple tourneys including 'ard boyz. I have also seen where they ask the player to play as if it was the size of the stock model or ask them to show up with a stock model.

This model falls under 'rule of cool'. If you want to use it, you need opponent permission, if they have a problem with the advantage of a larger BW as you try to block LOS to stuff behind it or extend your KFF bubble, then they may complain and have legitimate reasons. Cooler your model looks, the less people complain, but no matter how you slice it, every time that BW hits the table it is opponents permission if they wish to play you or not. If you are doing it for abusive reasons, they may refuse.

**Edit** I see now where the conversion was, it's an extra fat wagon that's really 2 wagons side by side and glued together. Nice conversion. I can see why some people would cry modeling for advantage because it widens the AV14 front arc and shrinks the AV12 side arcs, extends the charge range of units inside, and extends the area of LOS denial behind the wagon. Those are circumstances that can be called modeling for advantages.

Customizing a model to make a model that there is no model for isn't modeling to advantage, people need to chill out with legal conversions. I can't believe this thread went 8 pages over converting models to a piece of wargear they can legally purchase. By the same logic that DCA can't take power axes my blood angles no longer have the following wargear options because there is no model with it.

Sanguinary priest in terminator armor (There is only 1 sanguinary priest model, and all he has is a bolt pistol)
Also by the same logic it's illegal to give a sanguinary priest
A jump pack
A bike
A Power weapon
A Power fist
A lighting claw
Melta bombs
A combi bolter
A combi melta
A combi flamer
A combi plasma
A storm bolter
An infernus pistol
A plasma pistol

All those options are now illegal because there is only 1 sculpt for a sanguinary priest, and all he has is a bolt pistol.

Oh wow. Yeah, that's not going to fly in most places. That significantly changes the LOS profile of the model. If that was mine, I'd have a spare BW in my bag just in case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

schadenfreude wrote:All those options are now illegal because there is only 1 sculpt for a sanguinary priest, and all he has is a bolt pistol.

That is the basic contention. sigh.

Converting has been part of this hobby for a long time and is clearly still part of the hobby. Internet arguments aren't going to change that. I will continue to check with my TOs and opponents and don't anticipate anyone freaking out over my DCA (which I finished painting and converting this morning. Yay!).

Ha ha, See some people cant tell its a conversion, so I guess I did a good job lol.

Sorry, back on topic...

So the end resutlt same as any conversion is: ask your TO.

As I have said about 10000 times throughout the thread, but apparently people ignored: some conversions are necessary if you want to field X model with Y upgrade, and while there arent any rules allowing it it is unusual for people to have anything to say against it.

Does that mean you can model anything you like? Of course! It is a hobby AS WELL as a game! However when your conversion starts affecting the game, then people may have issues in game.

Apparently stating that makes you the devil. Shucks.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So the end resutlt same as any conversion is: ask your TO.

As I have said about 10000 times throughout the thread, but apparently people ignored: some conversions are necessary if you want to field X model with Y upgrade, and while there arent any rules allowing it it is unusual for people to have anything to say against it.

Does that mean you can model anything you like? Of course! It is a hobby AS WELL as a game! However when your conversion starts affecting the game, then people may have issues in game.

Apparently stating that makes you the devil. Shucks.

No, I agree that asking your TO/opponent about conversions is the right thing to do. What I don't agree with is that converting is somehow against the rules...