If I convert a crusader to have a power axe, rather than his power sword, would that be considered legal? Would he then have +1 strength and AP2? Also, while we're on the topic, would the same thing apply to Death Cult Assasins? ( a few power axes or more in the unit would be helpfull )

There are numerous threads about this topic. Yes, it is legal, yes it is cheesy.

NOOOOOOO!!!! Sorry, it is technically legal, as long as the wargear says "power weapon". Of course you will find that some people here claim that modeling something else is MFA.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:There are numerous threads about this topic. Yes, it is legal, yes it is cheesy.

It is currently legal. It is currently under debate for whether it is intended for you to be able to change the stock weapons or model one of each.

SoloFalcon1138 is trying to inject his own opinion into it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, be aware that because it may not have been intended, if GW FAQs it you may have to convert back later.

Wait for the FAQ

Id say if his wargears says he has a power weapon then yes , however if the base cost of the models says power sword with no aditional cost for the axe then NO. My 2 pennies worth.

Shas'o_Longshot wrote:Wait for the FAQ

Personally, and this is just me, I converted my 3 of my crusaders to have axes (1 was the guy with the point down sword and I didn't want to chop it that bad). I kept the swords, just in case, though. My DCA were converted from wyches in 5th and already had a mix of weapons, so I changed them up a bit more. Easy enough to convert back if the FAQ changes it.

Excellent feedback, thank you to all. I have some wyches I converted into DCA's, but the weapons keep breaking off... I will use Warriors of Chaos to create some Crusaders and put some axes on some of them. I'll check the faq when it comes out and see if it's a no no. If so, it should not be a problem. Again, thanks for all the good feedback.

The real question is where in the rules do they allow you to convert your models?

Are we talking about Black Templars Crusader's here? If so, you can 100% change what they have to what you want. The entry says:

"One Initiate may be armed with the following weapons: Power Weapon and Bolt Pistol at X Points..."

Power Weapon. Not sword, not axe, not maul. Power Weapon.

Now on something like a Chaplain? Nope, it is a Power Maul no matter what you want it to be.

Ghaz wrote:The real question is where in the rules do they allow you to convert your models?

I dont think it says it directly, but the theme of 6th seems to be, "creating your own", or something to that effect. Not being allowed to convert your models would be against the spirit of the game and I dont think such a rule would exist. So Ghaz, that is actually a really good point and question you bring up. Kudos.

Perhaps in tournament land, it can or is different?

Garukadon wrote:

Ghaz wrote:The real question is where in the rules do they allow you to convert your models?

I dont think it says it directly, but the theme of 6th seems to be, "creating your own", or something to that effect. Not being allowed to convert your models would be against the spirit of the game and I dont think such a rule would exist. So Ghaz, that is actually a really good point and question you bring up. Kudos.

Perhaps in tournament land, it can or is different?

It's really hard to say. There are units that have no description at all (such as Crusaders) as to what their Power Weapon SHOULD be. The pack that allows you to officially make Crusaders comes with Sword/Axe....so in this instance as nothing is already predefined in the Codex or Box I have to imagine it is up to the builder/player.

The rules tell you to look at the model to determine what kind of power weapon it has. A stock model would have one specific type of weapon usually. Where do the rules say that you can convert that model to have a different type of power weapon? Better to hash it out here than in the middle of a tournament.

I look at a crusader with a sword, axe, maul or lance then look at the profile where it says a Crusader has a power weapon, all rules are satisfied. The model has what the rules allow and it is properly modeled.

To state you can only use what the model came with is fine with me as well. I just bought a Crusader off of eBay. It came with a maul. I'm using it as it was supplied to me. Common sense tells me you look at the model as it sits on the table to keep someone from saying "this one has a maul, that one has a lance" even though they are all carrying swords.

Ghaz wrote:The rules tell you to look at the model to determine what kind of power weapon it has. A stock model would have one specific type of weapon usually. Where do the rules say that you can convert that model to have a different type of power weapon? Better to hash it out here than in the middle of a tournament.

I don't think it is clearly stated. It is more about the fact that it says "look at the model" and there is nothing stopping you from putting what you want on there (as it has always been). So technically if the only rule is "look at the model" and altering models isn't illegal you can figure that you are allowed to do it. I think that is the best answer that exists.

Ghaz wrote:The rules tell you to look at the model to determine what kind of power weapon it has. A stock model would have one specific type of weapon usually. Where do the rules say that you can convert that model to have a different type of power weapon? Better to hash it out here than in the middle of a tournament.

So you are saying we have to use the models as supplied by GW and can not convert any models?

I guess no one is using Harpy's then.

Or Tactical Squads with Lascannons or Plasma Cannons.

Or Razorbacks with Assault Cannons or Lascannon and TL Plasma Guns.

Or Sternguard with Combi-Plasma, Etc...

All of the options available in the codex are not represented on the sprues for said models, some units do not even have models.

We have to be allowed to convert models otherwise some of the options in the codex are not legal.

Ghaz wrote:The real question is where in the rules do they allow you to convert your models?

Same place where they allow you to assemble them.

Where in the rules it says that you can wear pants while playing?

Crimson wrote:

Ghaz wrote:The real question is where in the rules do they allow you to convert your models?

Same place where they allow you to assemble them.

Where in the rules it says that you can wear pants while playing?

Wait, we are supposed to wear pants while playing?

I really have been doing that incorrectly

Darn it DR, you beat me to it. As longs as I don't have to wear a shirt as well, I will continue to win...

DeathReaper wrote:

Crimson wrote:

Ghaz wrote:The real question is where in the rules do they allow you to convert your models?

Same place where they allow you to assemble them.

Where in the rules it says that you can wear pants while playing?

Wait, we are supposed to wear pants while playing?

Of course not, the rules don't let us.

Just keep your hands where I can see 'em.

UT doesn't really matter to me, but saying that the rules that tell you to look at the model to determine what kind of power weapon it has does not say that you can change the weapon to what kind of power weapon you want. Its like someone telling you to look at a car to determine what color it is and you take it as permission to repaint the car in whatever color you want.

And he darn sure isn't going to be allowed to touch my dice either.


Edit. So you are saying that using models in an army that are not released is illegal? Better clarify that for you. Models not yet released.

Can Crusaders have power axes? Yes! Go for it. You can convert your freaking models, dont let someone tell you otherwise. However, you must convert. So no "this sword is an axe"

And then theres Death Cult assassins... I think it's legal to give one of them two axes. Or two swords, maces, or lances. however, a lot of people want an axe and a sword, which I personally believe is not allowed. However, there are several threads and people talking about it, and they have some good points.

Ghaz wrote:The rules tell you to look at the model to determine what kind of power weapon it has. A stock model would have one specific type of weapon usually. Where do the rules say that you can convert that model to have a different type of power weapon? Better to hash it out here than in the middle of a tournament.

While that may be a valid point if all you're trying to do is establish the baseline for the rules based on pure RAW, unless people are going to start playing with Tactical Marines not being allowed any heavy weapon other than a Missile Launcher and their Sergeants not having access to power weapons at all, it's a pointless argument.


No, the rules don't say you can convert your models. There is, however, a commonly accepted practice whereby models can be equipped with whatever options they are legally entitled to. Otherwise, we would suddenly not be legally allowed to play with half of the options from many of our codexes.

A power weapon can be any one of the three forms listed in the rulebook. If we accept that models are allowed to be equipped with the weaponry that their army list entry allows, then putting any of those three power weapons on your model is perfectly acceptable.



The rules telling you to look at the model to determine what weapon they are carrying is purely establishing WYSIWYG. It's not intended to stop you from using whichever of the available weapons you choose... because if it is, the entire game is going to come to a screeching halt as just about every Marine player on the planet suddenly finds that his army is illegal. That way lies madness.



Besides, as has been pointed out in the previous threads discussing this, until GW puts out a DCA model that actually has the correct weapons to fit her unit entry, looking at the model doesn't tell you what they are equipped with, since neither of GW's DCA models has two power weapons.

TLR - Putting axes on your Crusaders is no different to putting axes on Tactical Sergeants.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ghaz wrote: Its like someone telling you to look at a car to determine what color it is and you take it as permission to repaint the car in whatever color you want.

It's really not, and that's not what people are doing anyway.


The permission to repaint the car is implicit in the idea that the car should represent what it is supposed to be. If your army list entry says you can take a car and give it a blue paintjob, then that should be represented by a car with a blue paintjob. If you only have a green car, then to accurately represent a blue one, you're going to have to repaint it.

The rule telling you to look at the car to determine what colour it is just telling you to look at the car to determine what colour it is. It has no bearing on whether or not you are allowed to repaint the car to make it the colour it is supposed to be.

Pants mandatory!

liturgies of blood wrote:Pants mandatory!

Yea, going to need a Page reference for where this is stated...

Ghaz wrote:UT doesn't really matter to me, but saying that the rules that tell you to look at the model to determine what kind of power weapon it has does not say that you can change the weapon to what kind of power weapon you want. Its like someone telling you to look at a car to determine what color it is and you take it as permission to repaint the car in whatever color you want.

The car (power weapon) may be blue(axe) or green(sword). The dealer only sells green ones but since the law allows me to drive a blue car it would not be illegal to paint one blue.

DeathReaper wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:Pants mandatory!

Yea, going to need a Page reference for where this is stated...

See the examples of how to play a game in the first pages of the book? Are the guys wearing pants? An explicit example of wearing pants while playing a game. Nothing in the rules says you have a choice in the matter.

insaniak wrote:There is, however, a commonly accepted practice whereby models can be equipped with whatever options they are legally entitled to.

Which would be more appropriate than trying to claim that the rule that tells you to look at the model to determine what kind of power weapon the model has.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
The car (power weapon) may be blue(axe) or green(sword). The dealer only sells green ones but since the law allows me to drive a blue car it would not be illegal to paint one blue.

That is not a proper analogy for the rule in question. The rule in question simply tells you to look at the car to determine its color. It does not give or deny permission to repaint the car, nor does it dictate what color the car originally is.

What if my wife wants to wear a dress when she games?Thinking of which if there are no females depicted playing the game in the rule book, are they allowed to play?

Edit. Sure it does. The law(rules) say I may drive a blue or green car. If the dealer(gw) only sells green ones I have permission to paint one blue if I prefer that over only what is provided. Again I'll ask. If you can't are you legally allowed to field any of the weapon/war gear options pointed out in any of the above posts even though the rules allow it?

Rules as published your wife must wear trousers. Well the developement team are asexual drones so I'd call it open to anyone.

I think the rules should have put a picture of women playing the game. Would be nice to see some more girls playing the game.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:There are numerous threads about this topic. Yes, it is legal, yes it is cheesy.

I think calling a Crusader with an axe 'cheesy' is a little harsh.

DCAs with one Power Maul/Power Axe and one Power Weapon is starting to get a bit iffy (what with the ability to switch out each turn), but I definitely wouldn't begrudge someone's Axe-wielding Crusader models.

DoW

Boss GreenNutz wrote:What if my wife wants to wear a dress when she games?Thinking of which if there are no females depicted playing the game in the rule book, are they allowed to play? Edit. Sure it does. The law(rules) say I may drive a blue or green car. If the dealer(gw) only sells green ones I have permission to paint one blue if I prefer that over only what is provided. Again I'll ask. If you can't are you legally allowed to field any of the weapon/war gear options pointed out in any of the above posts even though the rules allow it?

And again, a rule that tells you to look at a car to tell what color it is does nothing else. There may be other rules that allow you to paint the car, but the rule being discussed is not it. The rule that tells you to look at the weapon to determine what kind of weapon it is does nothing else then tell you what kind of weapon the model has. Its basically nothing more than a WYSIWYG rule specific to power weapons.

liturgies of blood wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:Pants mandatory!

Yea, going to need a Page reference for where this is stated...

See the examples of how to play a game in the first pages of the book? Are the guys wearing pants? An explicit example of wearing pants while playing a game. Nothing in the rules says you have a choice in the matter.

That's not in the section labelled rules, so doesn't apply.

Ghaz wrote:

Boss GreenNutz wrote:What if my wife wants to wear a dress when she games?Thinking of which if there are no females depicted playing the game in the rule book, are they allowed to play? Edit. Sure it does. The law(rules) say I may drive a blue or green car. If the dealer(gw) only sells green ones I have permission to paint one blue if I prefer that over only what is provided. Again I'll ask. If you can't are you legally allowed to field any of the weapon/war gear options pointed out in any of the above posts even though the rules allow it?

And again, a rule that tells you to look at a car to tell what color it is does nothing else. There may be other rules that allow you to paint the car, but the rule being discussed is not it. The rule that tells you to look at the weapon to determine what kind of weapon it is does nothing else then tell you what kind of weapon the model has. Its basically nothing more than a WYSIWYG rule specific to power weapons.

Also... new codex reprints, new codex releases and new FAQs are telling us some 'cars' may only be painted specific colors with the impending threat that almost all cars will have colors explicitly determined leaving many 'repainted' cars done in haste illegal to drive.

So you may get to enjoy your custom color for a month or so... or possibly forever... it is a crap shoot and your repainted car may be a waste of time and effort and money!

An after it is painted blue I look at it. What color do I see? I have now met alll requirements as they are written. Book says power weapon i look at a Crusader with an axe or maul and what do i see? Hint a power weapon.

Still wanting for you to answer the question if it is legal to field any of the units mentioned earlier. Would you mind?

And you still don't get it. You've not shown the rule that allows you to paint the car blue in the first place. Again, looking at the model to determine what kind of weapon it has is not carte blanche to model it however you like. It simply tells you what weapon the model has when you look at it, nothing more.

Quick question, can I put my pants back on now, or should I have never taken them off?

Ghaz wrote:And you still don't get it. You've not shown the rule that allows you to paint the car blue in the first place.

Do you seriously think that there is anything productive to be gained by that argument?


Regardless of what the rules do and don't say about conversions, it's accepted that models can be given the weapons that they are allowed by their army list entry. If you're playing somewhere that follows WYSIWYG, it is not only accepted but required.

Insisting that people need to show a rule allowing conversions is pointless in this discussion. Conversions (specifically in this case conversions done in order to equip models with a weapon allowed by their army list entry) are allowed, by popular convention if not by actual RAW.

Sure I have. The rule book says a power weapon has 4 types. You look at the model to determine which one it is. You do own a rule book and have the ability to read dont you?

So one more time since you must have inadvertently missed it the last few times. Is it legal to use any of the units listed in any of the above posts where boxes do not come with those unit options or a GW model has not yet been released. It is a simple yes/no question.

Did we determine that this was indeed a question about BT crusaders with power axes (and not land raider crusaders with power axe shooting cannons), because as has been stated previously the Black Templar upgrade pack comes with power swords and power axes.

No, it is about sob and gk crusaders.

zeshin wrote:...and not land raider crusaders with power axe shooting cannons...

Dammit, now I'm going to have to build one of those...

pretre wrote:No, it is about sob and gk crusaders.

Ahhhhh. Got it. Should have known no one plays BT in 6th.

I want a LRC that shoots kittens. But only really fluffy ones so they don't get hurt when they hit the target.

liturgies of blood wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

liturgies of blood wroteants mandatory!

Yea, going to need a Page reference for where this is stated...

See the examples of how to play a game in the first pages of the book? Are the guys wearing pants? An explicit example of wearing pants while playing a game. Nothing in the rules says you have a choice in the matter.

That's not in the section labelled rules, so doesn't apply.

while i found nothing in the BRB I did discover two references to pants wearing in the Apocalypse book
on both page 34 and page 70 one can clearly see GW endorsed gamers all wearing jeans therefore one can
only play this game wearing jeans. (blue preferred but black and grey also permitted)

better hope your opponent doesn’t bring genestealers...

insaniak wrote:Regardless of what the rules do and don't say about conversions, it's accepted that models can be given the weapons that they are allowed by their army list entry. If you're playing somewhere that follows WYSIWYG, it is not only accepted but required. Insisting that people need to show a rule allowing conversions is pointless in this discussion. Conversions (specifically in this case conversions done in order to equip models with a weapon allowed by their army list entry) are allowed, by popular convention if not by actual RAW.

Which once again, I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is the claims that the rules on page 61 support that position when they're mute on the matter. From page 61 of the rulebook:

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

That doesn't support either position. It no more supports or disproves either position than does the pile-in rules for close combat. They just don't say anything on the matter at all.

As for RAI, good thing is we have a FAQ that states are DCA supposed to have two power swords or two power weapons:

Sisters of Battle FAQ V1.0 wrote:
Errata: Options Change all references to[sic] "Power sword" to "Power weapon."

Obviously the first "to" should have been "from", but original spelling retained here for accuracy of the quote.

There's no way someone can argue that DCA are supposed to have two power swords after GW went and errata'd that restriction away from them from SOB.

Luide wrote:
There's no way someone can argue that DCA are supposed to have two power swords after GW went and errata'd that restriction away from them from SOB.

Well...there is. The rules don't say "If no power weapon is specified, players are free to model them however they fit".
Honestly this is one of the very few things about 6th that GW genuinely got wrong. We'll have to wait for the Chaos Codex to see what it's all about, from the rumours i've heard (so this could just be bs), the type of power weapon is specified rather than simply "power weapon". But as I say, that could be wrong.

So will the Chaos Codex say:
"Chaos Lords may take a power weapon for +20pts"
or
"Chaos Lords may take a power sword for +15pts, or power axe for +20pts"

Only time will tell.
Of course that won't settle the argument, but it will give us an indication of what GW were thinking when they wrote it.
Or it could be FAQed, which is unlikely.

Ghaz wrote:

insaniak wrote:Regardless of what the rules do and don't say about conversions, it's accepted that models can be given the weapons that they are allowed by their army list entry. If you're playing somewhere that follows WYSIWYG, it is not only accepted but required. Insisting that people need to show a rule allowing conversions is pointless in this discussion. Conversions (specifically in this case conversions done in order to equip models with a weapon allowed by their army list entry) are allowed, by popular convention if not by actual RAW.

Which once again, I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is the claims that the rules on page 61 support that position when they're mute on the matter. From page 61 of the rulebook:

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

That doesn't support either position. It no more supports or disproves either position than does the pile-in rules for close combat. They just don't say anything on the matter at all.

How is P.61 unclear?

Power weapons come in 4 varieties now.

Maul, Lance, Axe, and Sword.

They all have their advantages and disadvantages.

They are all legal options for models to take when buying a "Power Weapon"

Adding the proper weapon for the wargear you purchased is in line with WYSIWYG.

Saying that a unit that lists Power Weapon in its entry can not have a Power Axe because the model does not come with one is to say that Space Marine Tactical squads Must have a Missile Launcher as their Heavy Weapon, because that is the only option that comes with the Tactical Box. Which of course is incorrect.

Except the rules for tactical squads state that they're allowed to take a Missile Launcher. The rules do NOT say you're free to model power weapons as you see fit.


I'm not defending the rule, simply saying as it is - RAW you have to use the weapon it comes with, you're not given permission to use anything else.

RAW don't say anything about having to use the weapon it comes with, they merely say to look at the model. If you have converted it to give it an entirely legal weapon option, which in this case it would be, as the codex entry merely says power WEAPON as opposed to sword or axe, then looking at the model merely confirms that it has that weapon, and means that you then can't use it as something else. This may not be RAI, but it certainly is how it is currently written.

grrr

As above.

The rule is mute on whether you are allowed to model whatever you like - it just says you look at the model, and that tells you what the model is armed with.

Testify wrote:Except the rules for tactical squads state that they're allowed to take a Missile Launcher. The rules do NOT say you're free to model power weapons as you see fit.

The rules for DCA state I'm allowed to have 2 power weapons.
Find the restriction that they must be as GW models them.

I'm not defending the rule, simply saying as it is - RAW you have to use the weapon it comes with, you're not given permission to use anything else.

Cite the rule you're asserting exists please.

While we're on the topic, would you accept these as power axes on a crusader?

http://www.anvilindustry.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&path=60_88&product_id=144

I know that they are chain weapons, but various chain weapons have been powered in the past (DOWII's Gladius Of Tenacity, Gorechild, chainfists)

Testify wrote:I'm not defending the rule, simply saying as it is - RAW you have to use the weapon it comes with, you're not given permission to use anything else.

And the opposing position is that not only is that not RAW, because the option you are given is to use a weapon that can come in one of for different forms, but it's craziness that results in most models not being able top use all of their available options.

From purely a rules perspective, there is absolutely no difference between giving a Crusader a power axe and giving a Tactical Marine a multi melta.

Many people have butthurt over the power weapon debate, honestly I don't get it. PW's ignored all armor saves in 5th so making it I1 +1S AP2 is now somehow broke, it all seems ok to me.

4oursword wrote:While we're on the topic, would you accept these as power axes on a crusader?

http://www.anvilindustry.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&path=60_88&product_id=144

I know that they are chain weapons, but various chain weapons have been powered in the past (DOWII's Gladius Of Tenacity, Gorechild, chainfists)

Personally, I like to make sure my power weapons have a distinct color from all my other weapons (and that contrasts my army's paint scheme) and as long as they do that, I'm cool. So my eviscerators are normal colored but have lightning blue teeth. Most of my other pw are straight up lightning blue (for my SOB, which are painted red). This makes them clear on the tabletop. If you do that, you should be fine.

(As a contrast, my orks have bright red power weapons, my SW have lightning blue and my guard have a darker, but still light blue.)

insaniak wrote:
From purely a rules perspective, there is absolutely no difference between giving a Crusader a power axe and giving a Tactical Marine a multi melta.

Totally disagree. We can take a multi-melta due to explicit permission in the wargear option of the codex.

The CHOICE of a power weapon is IMPLIED by a unmoderated social convention and is not explicit int he rulebook. GW could have made it explicit by saying "any model with a power weapon may be equipped with any of the 4 following types" but they didn't say that. They said look at the model and we are using unwritten social convention that we are allowed to modify the models the same way as if it was a wargear option...

The problem is, this has been removed for weapon options whenever the weapon or model has a specific look or description. Necrons may not take a Hyperface maul, Marines may not take a Crozaruius axe. GW has decided for some options to actually lock down the weapon to what the 'model looks like' not 'model the weapon however you wish.'

There have been some that fell through the cracks like Runic axes and such but what is more likley? that a second round of FAQs will begin to lock down generic powerweapons into specific builds or that it will be every powerweapon is any powerweapon? We have seen how some units have been locked down, we will see how Chaos get's locked down if they remove the choice of POWER WEAPONS from the codex and explicitly grant specific weapon types. We also may see harlequins being locked into swords or something too.

Saying there is *NO DIFFERENCE* is not true... there very much is a difference because The rules say you may take a multimelta, the rules don't say you can't modify your model to have a power axe... So it is implied permission by a gaping hole which may be removed for some units at any time.

pretre wrote:

4oursword wrote:While we're on the topic, would you accept these as power axes on a crusader?

http://www.anvilindustry.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&path=60_88&product_id=144

I know that they are chain weapons, but various chain weapons have been powered in the past (DOWII's Gladius Of Tenacity, Gorechild, chainfists)

Personally, I like to make sure my power weapons have a distinct color from all my other weapons (and that contrasts my army's paint scheme) and as long as they do that, I'm cool. So my eviscerators are normal colored but have lightning blue teeth. Most of my other pw are straight up lightning blue (for my SOB, which are painted red). This makes them clear on the tabletop. If you do that, you should be fine.

(As a contrast, my orks have bright red power weapons, my SW have lightning blue and my guard have a darker, but still light blue.)

Awesome! Then I shall use them on my crusaders, along with AnvilIndusty's Riot Shields!

nkelsch wrote:

insaniak wrote:
From purely a rules perspective, there is absolutely no difference between giving a Crusader a power axe and giving a Tactical Marine a multi melta.

Totally disagree. We can take a multi-melta due to explicit permission in the wargear option of the codex.

The CHOICE of a power weapon is IMPLIED by a unmoderated social convention and is not explicit int he rulebook. GW could have made it explicit by saying "any model with a power weapon may be equipped with any of the 4 following types" but they didn't say that. They said look at the model and we are using unwritten social convention that we are allowed to modify the models the same way as if it was a wargear option...

The problem is, this has been removed for weapon options whenever the weapon or model has a specific look or description. Necrons may not take a Hyperface maul, Marines may not take a Crozaruius axe. GW has decided for some options to actually lock down the weapon to what the 'model looks like' not 'model the weapon however you wish.'

There have been some that fell through the cracks like Runic axes and such but what is more likley? that a second round of FAQs will begin to lock down generic powerweapons into specific builds or that it will be every powerweapon is any powerweapon? We have seen how some units have been locked down, we will see how Chaos get's locked down if they remove the choice of POWER WEAPONS from the codex and explicitly grant specific weapon types. We also may see harlequins being locked into swords or something too.

Saying there is *NO DIFFERENCE* is not true... there very much is a difference because The rules say you may take a multimelta, the rules don't say you can't modify your model to have a power axe... So it is implied permission by a gaping hole which may be removed for some units at any time.

I agree with the bulk of your argument, just not your conclusion, nkelsch. There is definitely a difference, but I believe that you are still allowed to change them. You give the examples where GW wished to lock it down and they clearly did not do that with Crusaders or DCA (of course, they missed SW Crozius as well, but...).

pretre wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

insaniak wrote:
From purely a rules perspective, there is absolutely no difference between giving a Crusader a power axe and giving a Tactical Marine a multi melta.

Totally disagree. We can take a multi-melta due to explicit permission in the wargear option of the codex.

The CHOICE of a power weapon is IMPLIED by a unmoderated social convention and is not explicit int he rulebook. GW could have made it explicit by saying "any model with a power weapon may be equipped with any of the 4 following types" but they didn't say that. They said look at the model and we are using unwritten social convention that we are allowed to modify the models the same way as if it was a wargear option...

The problem is, this has been removed for weapon options whenever the weapon or model has a specific look or description. Necrons may not take a Hyperface maul, Marines may not take a Crozaruius axe. GW has decided for some options to actually lock down the weapon to what the 'model looks like' not 'model the weapon however you wish.'

There have been some that fell through the cracks like Runic axes and such but what is more likley? that a second round of FAQs will begin to lock down generic powerweapons into specific builds or that it will be every powerweapon is any powerweapon? We have seen how some units have been locked down, we will see how Chaos get's locked down if they remove the choice of POWER WEAPONS from the codex and explicitly grant specific weapon types. We also may see harlequins being locked into swords or something too.

Saying there is *NO DIFFERENCE* is not true... there very much is a difference because The rules say you may take a multimelta, the rules don't say you can't modify your model to have a power axe... So it is implied permission by a gaping hole which may be removed for some units at any time.

I agree with the bulk of your argument, just not your conclusion, nkelsch. There is definitely a difference, but I believe that you are still allowed to change them. You give the examples where GW wished to lock it down and they clearly did not do that with Crusaders or DCA (of course, they missed SW Crozius as well, but...).

I agree you can change them for now... but I also believe many units are going to be further restricted based upon GW appearance. And we do not have explicit permission to change them, just implied that it doesn't say we can't change them. I feel more static the figure, the better chance they will be restricted. One-piece metal/finecast VS multipart plastic.

I wouldn't advise changing *ANYTHING* until after the chaos codex and the next round of needed FAQs. We all know Runic Axes and SW crozarious is probably in for a FAQ as well as a few other units. We may see Chaos end up with different point values, or some models being restricted to specific versions.

I play orks so I have nothing to modify, but I wouldn't recommend breaking arms off half your models just yet. GW leaving a big hole is not the same as an intentional change. More often than once has the GW rule designers said "dear god, you guys are some cheaty bastards, it is clear what we meant but now we need to FAQ it."

nkelsch wrote:There have been some that fell through the cracks like Runic axes and such but what is more likley? that a second round of FAQs will begin to lock down generic powerweapons into specific builds or that it will be every powerweapon is any powerweapon? We have seen how some units have been locked down, we will see how Chaos get's locked down if they remove the choice of POWER WEAPONS from the codex and explicitly grant specific weapon types. We also may see harlequins being locked into swords or something too.

The current Grey Knights codex already does that. While models like a Techmarine, Crusader or Deathcult Assassins either have or can upgrade to a 'power weapon', the various Inquisitors or Warrior Acolytes can only upgrade to a power sword.

And then there's the whole ordeal of various FAQs changing all entries of 'power sword' to 'power weapon', as has been noted. I somehow doubt they would change it only for it to work exactly the same because there's currently only a model with a power sword out.

Do you also think that when a Librarian equips Terminator armour, he cannot equip a Force Sword or Force Axe any more, as there's currently only a Terminator Librarian model with a Force Stave and the only Force Axe and Force Sword wielding Librarians are in Power Armour?

Redemption wrote:

nkelsch wrote:There have been some that fell through the cracks like Runic axes and such but what is more likley? that a second round of FAQs will begin to lock down generic powerweapons into specific builds or that it will be every powerweapon is any powerweapon? We have seen how some units have been locked down, we will see how Chaos get's locked down if they remove the choice of POWER WEAPONS from the codex and explicitly grant specific weapon types. We also may see harlequins being locked into swords or something too.

The current Grey Knights codex already does that. While models like a Techmarine, Crusader or Deathcult Assassins either have or can upgrade to a 'power weapon', the various Inquisitors or Warrior Acolytes can only upgrade to a power sword.

And then there's the whole ordeal of various FAQs changing all entries of 'power sword' to 'power weapon', as has been noted. I somehow doubt they would change it only for it to work exactly the same because there's currently only a model with a power sword out.

Do you also think that when a Librarian equips Terminator armour, he cannot equip a Force Sword or Force Axe any more, as there's currently only a Terminator Librarian model with a Force Stave and the only Force Axe and Force Sword wielding Librarians are in Power Armour?

Except the first round of FAQs was hastily done and lots of things were missed... and a catch all 'swords are weapons' is not the same as an explicit thought out 'this unit may have these weapons based upon appearance' like what happened to Necrons and Hyperphase swords.

The issue is it is not explicit, it is implied based upon a lack of explicit permission to buy a specific weapon iof your choice and relies on the concept you may model as your choice. GW has already started round two of locking down power weapons and we will see how the chaos codex handles it. I wouldn't recommend mutilating your models yet until we have a more consistent and well-implemented FAQ because we all can agree the current FAQ released is tenuous at best and has a lot of holes in it.

nkelsch wrote:Except the first round of FAQs was hastily done and lots of things were missed... and a catch all 'swords are weapons' is not the same as an explicit thought out 'this unit may have these weapons based upon appearance' like what happened to Necrons and Hyperphase swords.

Somehow, I suspect that the decision to rule that Hyperphase swords are swords was not based entirely on their appearance...

The issue is it is not explicit, it is implied based upon a lack of explicit permission to buy a specific weapon iof your choice and relies on the concept you may model as your choice.

A concept that all wargear choices in every codex rely upon.

I am really not understanding how this is an issue. The rules in the book refer to when you are playing the game.
How many of us are actually modelling our guys during the game?
If I show up with a guy holding an axe, and the rule says to look at the model to see what he is equipped with, you look at him, and see he has an axe, bam, he has an axe.
There is nothing in the rulebook saying "when you buy a model, look at the sprues, and this forever determines exactly what wargear he has."

If Power Weapons as a whole are still such a source of confusion, what of Null Rods? They are power weapons with additional special rules, so they use the basic AP3 profile. Would a sword be acceptable? Same rules, and I print army roster sheets for my opponents so as to minimize the possibility of confusion.

Also, Insaniak: Has your Avatar always been animated?

4oursword wrote:If Power Weapons as a whole are still such a source of confusion, what of Null Rods? They are power weapons with additional special rules, so they use the basic AP3 profile. Would a sword be acceptable? Same rules, and I print army roster sheets for my opponents so as to minimize the possibility of confusion.

Same profile basically. I would try to make sure it looks different from any other swords in your army though.

pretre wrote:

4oursword wrote:If Power Weapons as a whole are still such a source of confusion, what of Null Rods? They are power weapons with additional special rules, so they use the basic AP3 profile. Would a sword be acceptable? Same rules, and I print army roster sheets for my opponents so as to minimize the possibility of confusion.

Same profile basically. I would try to make sure it looks different from any other swords in your army though.

Isn't there a staff on the sprue that is called a null rod in the codex's pages?

Pretty sure Null Rod is a non-modeled item at this point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
By that I mean that it doesn't currently have a model that shows one. Not that you don't have to model it.

insaniak wrote:
I agree with the bulk of your argument, just not your conclusion, nkelsch. There is definitely a difference, but I believe that you are still allowed to change them. You give the examples where GW wished to lock it down and they clearly did not do that with Crusaders or DCA (of course, they missed SW Crozius as well, but...).

I don't think it was an accident with SW. They have a model on the mark with an axe.

Saying that you cannot change a model with a power sword to a power axe, causes some problems.
What happens if I have an OOP model with a power axe, but the current lease only has power swords? So I get power axes because I've been playing a long time?

IMO, if the army list says power weapon, you can convert to axe/mace/lance/sword freely.

-Matt

Insaniak didn't say that, I did.

4oursword wrote:If Power Weapons as a whole are still such a source of confusion, what of Null Rods? They are power weapons with additional special rules, so they use the basic AP3 profile. Would a sword be acceptable? Same rules, and I print army roster sheets for my opponents so as to minimize the possibility of confusion.

It shouldn't really matter what sort of weapon you use for Unusual power- or force- weapons, so long as they can be told apart from any other power- or force- weapons in your army.

Also, Insaniak: Has your Avatar always been animated?

For around 10 years now, yes

Oh, so it is mostly a recent development.

Newer than rumors about plastic Sisters eh?

Nope, those date back to at least 12-15 years ago.

Shandara wrote:Newer than rumors about plastic Sisters eh?

I shudder whenever I see that. I have over 100 Sisters and cry when I see they may get replaced. Not that I don't want updated models I just know how much I spent buying metals even if I can still use them. Unless I'm playing some of the folks here since they'll be different models than what GW currently produces.

Testify wrote:Except the rules for tactical squads state that they're allowed to take a Missile Launcher. The rules do NOT say you're free to model power weapons as you see fit.


I'm not defending the rule, simply saying as it is - RAW you have to use the weapon it comes with, you're not given permission to use anything else.

It isn't an absolute statement though Testify that you look to what is on the model to determine the type of weapon and the rules.

For example, if I want my wolf lord to have a power axe, I need to specifically model a power axe on a wolf lord model. I didn't look to the model to determine what type of weapon and rules, I modeled a weapon type on the model and thus created a set of rules for that model.

So unless you want to go down the road that modeling wargear on a model is not supported by the rules, then you need to accept that looking to the model to determine type and rules of a weapon is not an absolute statement that is only a one way street.

Strict RAW arguments don't interest me , more often than not they lead to absurdity (though it is worth pointing out that the rules do NOT state that you can model the power weapon however you like, so it is at best a "light" RAW argument). The fact is that in a lot of cases, especially units that are made up of models exclusively armed with power weapons, deciding what type they are can add a lot of power to a unit that is not costed in.
If it was simply about space marine captains, or imperial guard commanders, I don't think anyone would care. But when your ork boys get charged by power-maul weilding death company, or your deathwing get assaulted by axe-weilding banshees, that just stinks of cheese.

Testify wrote:Strict RAW arguments don't interest me , more often than not they lead to absurdity (though it is worth pointing out that the rules do NOT state that you can model the power weapon however you like, so it is at best a "light" RAW argument). The fact is that in a lot of cases, especially units that are made up of models exclusively armed with power weapons, deciding what type they are can add a lot of power to a unit that is not costed in.
If it was simply about space marine captains, or imperial guard commanders, I don't think anyone would care. But when your ork boys get charged by power-maul weilding death company, or your deathwing get assaulted by axe-weilding banshees, that just stinks of cheese.

It is costed in as there is no premium for choosing one type of power weapon over the other. A power weapon costs the same as a power weapons as a power weapon. The percieved advantages are just that, percieved. Their are advantages and disadvantages linked with each choice and to only shout the loudest for the advantages without mentioning the disadvantages is not being honest.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

Testify wrote:Strict RAW arguments don't interest me , more often than not they lead to absurdity (though it is worth pointing out that the rules do NOT state that you can model the power weapon however you like, so it is at best a "light" RAW argument). The fact is that in a lot of cases, especially units that are made up of models exclusively armed with power weapons, deciding what type they are can add a lot of power to a unit that is not costed in.
If it was simply about space marine captains, or imperial guard commanders, I don't think anyone would care. But when your ork boys get charged by power-maul weilding death company, or your deathwing get assaulted by axe-weilding banshees, that just stinks of cheese.

It is costed in as there is no premium for choosing one type of power weapon over the other. A power weapon costs the same as a power weapons as a power weapon. The percieved advantages are just that, percieved. Their are advantages and disadvantages linked with each choice and to only shout the loudest for the advantages without mentioning the disadvantages is not being honest.

Well, not quite. If everyone in my army is I3, I can assume I'm going to go last most of the time (since we all fight MEQ anyway). Therefore, by modelling a power axe instead of sword, I've just gotten +1 strength for free.
It also allows for extreme tailoring. If you know you're playing against demons (who don't have an armour save), or an army with a universally poor armour save like guard or (with a couple of exceptions) orks, power mauls just gave you +2 strength, also completely free.

Testify wrote:Well, not quite. If everyone in my army is I3, I can assume I'm going to go last most of the time (since we all fight MEQ anyway). Therefore, by modelling a power axe instead of sword, I've just gotten +1 strength for free.

And?

If I'm playing Orks, I know that I'm going to miss more ranged shots than I hit with. Is it therefore 'cheesey' for me to choose to take weapons that put out more shots, to maximise my odds of hitting something?

It also allows for extreme tailoring. If you know you're playing against demons (who don't have an armour save), or an army with a universally poor armour save like guard or (with a couple of exceptions) orks, power mauls just gave you +2 strength, also completely free.

And if you are playing against poor armour, frag missiles kill more models than krak... also for the same points cost.

insaniak wrote:

Testify wrote:Well, not quite. If everyone in my army is I3, I can assume I'm going to go last most of the time (since we all fight MEQ anyway). Therefore, by modelling a power axe instead of sword, I've just gotten +1 strength for free.

And?

If I'm playing Orks, I know that I'm going to miss more ranged shots than I hit with. Is it therefore 'cheesey' for me to choose to take weapons that put out more shots, to maximise my odds of hitting something?

It also allows for extreme tailoring. If you know you're playing against demons (who don't have an armour save), or an army with a universally poor armour save like guard or (with a couple of exceptions) orks, power mauls just gave you +2 strength, also completely free.

And if you are playing against poor armour, frag missiles kill more models than krak... also for the same points cost.

Both of those instances are included in the points costs of the original models.
What we're talking about here is something going from S3 AP2 (5th edition power weapons) to S4 AP2, for free. Or S4 to S6 against an opponent whose best armour save is 4+.

Do you genuinely not understand the grievance or do you just not care about it? It's important.

Testify wrote:Do you genuinely not understand the grievance or do you just not care about it? It's important.

I really don't understand the grievance. Some people think Vendettas became much better "for free" in 6th edition too. There have been lots of changes and being able to tailor your power weapons is one of them.

Saying that you have no disadvantage with switching S3 AP3 I3 to S4 AP2 I1 isn't very accurate. Against Orks, Necrons and IG, you'll be going first or simultaneously with I3. Otherwise you go last.

Saying "well all play MEQ anyway" so you shouldn't be allowed to have extra Strength on your power weapons is kind of a silly argument imo.

DoW

Testify wrote:Both of those instances are included in the points costs of the original models.

Exactly. And since a power axe and a power sword are the same points cost... the difference between them is also accounted for in the points cost of the models that can take them.

Do you genuinely not understand the grievance or do you just not care about it? It's important.

I understand it. I think it's misguided.

You're taking the fact that the different weapons all cost the same as proof that you can't choose which to use. I'm taking it as a sign that the positives and negatives of each weapon are intended to balance each other out, and so GW fully intended people to be able to pick and choose.

If that gives certain low-initiative models a slight boost in close combat as a side effect of taking certain weapons... well, those are models that ultimately needed that boost anyway, since the current system has always been heavily skewed against low armour, low intiiative units.

All I know is from watching all of these “Discussions” about is it a Power Weapon or not. I am going to LMFAO if it comes out in the new FAQs make the Wolf Priest, Death Cult Assassins and Crusaders can choose any Power Weapon they want.

DogOfWar wrote:

Saying "well all play MEQ anyway" so you shouldn't be allowed to have extra Strength on your power weapons is kind of a silly argument imo.

DoW

Well since 'proxies' never work for 'power weapons' due to the rules... it is impossible to switch from an axe to a sword to a maul between games without having totally different models. You can ask to proxy a missile launcher as a melta because those weapon options function via purchasing it on your army list, but the only way the rules for power weapons function is to be physically modeled.

DogOfWar wrote:

Testify wrote:Do you genuinely not understand the grievance or do you just not care about it? It's important.

I really don't understand the grievance. Some people think Vendettas became much better "for free" in 6th edition too. There have been lots of changes and being able to tailor your power weapons is one of them.

Saying that you have no disadvantage with switching S3 AP3 I3 to S4 AP2 I1 isn't very accurate. Against Orks, Necrons and IG, you'll be going first or simultaneously with I3. Otherwise you go last.

Depends entirely on your meta. All I know is that there'd be no reason whatsoever to give anything in the IG codex a power sword or maul. YMMV

insaniak wrote:
Exactly. And since a power axe and a power sword are the same points cost... the difference between them is also accounted for in the points cost of the models that can take them.

Not really. Howling Banshees wound MEQ on 4s now. Death Company can wound deamon princes on 2s.

insaniak wrote:
I understand it. I think it's misguided.

You're taking the fact that the different weapons all cost the same as proof that you can't choose which to use. I'm taking it as a sign that the positives and negatives of each weapon are intended to balance each other out, and so GW fully intended people to be able to pick and choose.

If that gives certain low-initiative models a slight boost in close combat as a side effect of taking certain weapons... well, those are models that ultimately needed that boost anyway, since the current system has always been heavily skewed against low armour, low intiiative units.

DC didn't need a boost. Assassins didn't need a boost. Howling Banshees didn't need a boost (okay, other than the nerf to assaulting from vehicles). I can't think of a single weak unit that's been improved by the power weapon nonsense.
And I really don't think that they're balanced in the slightest. I'm tempted to make a poll asking the community which they'd prefer.

Testify wrote:DC didn't need a boost. Assassins didn't need a boost. Howling Banshees didn't need a boost

Those are rather odd examples of low initiative, low armour units...

I can't think of a single weak unit that's been improved by the power weapon nonsense.

So then what was your objection, again...? Because that's what you were complaining about just before...



Low-initiaitve units get a slight boost from being able to upgrade to Mauls and Axes with no particular down-side.
DCA get a (probably unintentional) boost from being able to take two different weapons and just always use whichever is best for the given situation.

For other 4+ Initiative units, though, the positives are weighed out against the lower AP or the slower hit.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:

Shandara wrote:Newer than rumors about plastic Sisters eh?

I shudder whenever I see that. I have over 100 Sisters and cry when I see they may get replaced. Not that I don't want updated models I just know how much I spent buying metals even if I can still use them. Unless I'm playing some of the folks here since they'll be different models than what GW currently produces.

Yeah, I really hated when GE replaced my $20 metal dreadnought with that new cheap plastic one... oh wait.

-Matt

insaniak wrote:

4oursword wrote:Also, Insaniak: Has your Avatar always been animated?

For around 10 years now, yes

Was absolutely terrified for a moment :O

I think that means that it is working.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:

Ghaz wrote:UT doesn't really matter to me, but saying that the rules that tell you to look at the model to determine what kind of power weapon it has does not say that you can change the weapon to what kind of power weapon you want. Its like someone telling you to look at a car to determine what color it is and you take it as permission to repaint the car in whatever color you want.

The car (power weapon) may be blue(axe) or green(sword). The dealer only sells green ones but since the law allows me to drive a blue car it would not be illegal to paint one blue.

Well... your analogy, other than being terribly convoluted, seems to verify that it is ok. Because it IS ok to repaint your car.

Except the rule in question on page 61 says nothing other than look at the model to determine what weapon it has. It says nothing about whether you can or can not convert the model.

It is impossible to look at the model itself anyway, since it's usually covered in Citadel Paints (tm)

lol I love these threads now. The last one was a constant back and forth on conversion versus assembly. Now we're onto paint.

There is definitely implicit allowance to modify models, otherwise the "impressive bases" and variable positions that are referenced are incorrect.

So, since you are not ever required to check a "stock" model, or a model on the website, or the sprue the model came on; there is no reason to add rules.
Look at the model on the table and visually determine what type of power weapon is being used.

I am wondering if some of these people expect me to buy 3-8 boxes of genestealers to field ygmarls.

liturgies of blood wrote:Rules as published your wife must wear trousers. Well the developement team are asexual drones so I'd call it open to anyone.

I think the rules should have put a picture of women playing the game. Would be nice to see some more girls playing the game.

There is. Its the first photograph in the book, I think...

Also, if you buy a power weapon from your codex I say you get to choose. Either you go normally wih normal strength, or you get a higher strength with a reduced I. Simple trade off for the same points. The fact that fighting with an axe is no slower than fighting with a sword apparently hasn't registered with GW

Flinty wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:Rules as published your wife must wear trousers. Well the developement team are asexual drones so I'd call it open to anyone.

I think the rules should have put a picture of women playing the game. Would be nice to see some more girls playing the game.

There is. Its the first photograph in the book, I think...

Not in the rules section, so it doesn't apply.

2nd picture, after the guy painting.

kirsanth wrote:There is definitely implicit allowance to modify models, otherwise the "impressive bases" and variable positions that are referenced are incorrect.

So, since you are not ever required to check a "stock" model, or a model on the website, or the sprue the model came on; there is no reason to add rules.
Look at the model on the table and visually determine what type of power weapon is being used.

I am wondering if some of these people expect me to buy 3-8 boxes of genestealers to field ygmarls.

All of these things fall under "modelling".

Giving a company commander a bolt pistol is, rules-wise, the same as having an entire blob in the lying down position.
You can't claim that because some people think modelling certain things is MFA, that invalidates many codex options - it doesn't. MFA is inherently subjective.

Regardless, you can't escape the fact that the rulebook (remember, "we use a permissive ruleset"), does NOT give you permission to model whichever power weapon you want.

That way only lies madness (as someone puts nicely on this board), since the rulebook allows precious few things when it comes to putting your models together for gaming.

pretre wrote:

Flinty wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:Rules as published your wife must wear trousers. Well the developement team are asexual drones so I'd call it open to anyone.

I think the rules should have put a picture of women playing the game. Would be nice to see some more girls playing the game.

There is. Its the first photograph in the book, I think...

Not in the rules section, so it doesn't apply.

2nd picture, after the guy painting.

More importantly, I said women. One swallow does not a summer make.
The GW shops are incredibly hostile to women IMHO, I had to tell a kid to shut up when he kept shouting that he was going to rape the only girl in the store. Freedom of speech and all that aside, not cool.

Testify wrote:You can't claim that because some people think modelling certain things is MFA, that invalidates many codex options - it doesn't

This much I agree with.

Then how about this situation. I like the Metal Cadian Officer minis but they only come with Bolt Pistols. I want to give mine a Plasma pistol and would rather use the metal mini rather than the plastic one from the box which includes a PP. So I'm guessing in the narrow minds of some here it would be illegal for me to cut the BP off and swap it with a PP correct?

Boss GreenNutz wrote:Then how about this situation. I like the Metal Cadian Officer minis but they only come with Bolt Pistols. I want to give mine a Plasma pistol and would rather use the metal mini rather than the plastic one from the box which includes a PP. So I'm guessing in the narrow minds of some here it would be illegal for me to cut the BP off and swap it with a PP correct?

No. They are both modelling. One of them is considered modelling for advantage by some. Learn the distinction.

What if I consider striking at initative 1(power weapon: axe) a DISadvantage over striking at normal initative(power weapon: sword)? Is that modelling for disadvantage?

Testify wrote:Regardless, you can't escape the fact that the rulebook (remember, "we use a permissive ruleset"), does NOT give you permission to model whichever power weapon you want.

It also does not give you permission to assemble models or paint them...

It also does not give permission to model a Lascannon onto a Devastator marine (An option the Kit does not come with). Which, of course, is silly.

Same applies for power weapons, if the kit does not come with them you can use bits to model them on. It is a convention the rules must allow, otherwise there are many many models that are not legal.

Fact remains that there is no advantage to having any of the listed power weapons, as they all have their drawbacks and cost the same points.

beigeknight wrote:What if I consider striking at initative 1(power weapon: axe) a DISadvantage over striking at normal initative(power weapon: sword)? Is that modelling for disadvantage?

I have wondering about that to.
Now taking my DCA and giving her a Power Maul and a Power Axe...

Personally, I'm 4 Maul/Sword, 2 Axe/Sword. I'm thinking of swapping a couple swords on the mauls for Axes. We'll see though.

DeathReaper wrote:

Testify wrote:Regardless, you can't escape the fact that the rulebook (remember, "we use a permissive ruleset"), does NOT give you permission to model whichever power weapon you want.

It also does not give you permission to assemble models or paint them...

It also does not give permission to model a Lascannon onto a Devastator marine (An option the Kit does not come with). Which, of course, is silly.

Same applies for power weapons, if the kit does not come with them you can use bits to model them on. It is a convention the rules must allow, otherwise there are many many models that are not legal.

Fact remains that there is no advantage to having any of the listed power weapons, as they all have their drawbacks and cost the same points.

There is an advantage, as I have already posted. You can insist they are the same if you want.

I know I am going to go through my old D&D Minis for Crusaders and DCAs

Testify wrote:There is an advantage, as I have already posted. You can insist they are the same if you want.

Your perception of advantage is fine for you to have. The game, in this case however, actually has a value for this modeling. One of two things with the same points value, which is stated in the rules as relating their relative power (and thus advantage) cannot be (rightfully) called advantageous over the other.

"Knowing the points value your models gives you a way of reckoning your army's effectiveness."

Two armies identical except for for the varieties of power weapons are therefor exactly as effective as each other, neither has advantage according to the rules.

Testify wrote:

Boss GreenNutz wrote:Then how about this situation. I like the Metal Cadian Officer minis but they only come with Bolt Pistols. I want to give mine a Plasma pistol and would rather use the metal mini rather than the plastic one from the box which includes a PP. So I'm guessing in the narrow minds of some here it would be illegal for me to cut the BP off and swap it with a PP correct?

No. They are both modelling. One of them is considered modelling for advantage by some. Learn the distinction.

I wouldn't consider putting a PP on a Cadian that only came with a BP modeling for an advantage. How do you figure that?

So you are basically saying that giving one model a weapon allowed by the rules and DEX is OK but giving another model a weapon allowed by the rules and DEX isn't. OK then.

EDIT: Forgot the smiley.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:

Testify wrote:

Boss GreenNutz wrote:Then how about this situation. I like the Metal Cadian Officer minis but they only come with Bolt Pistols. I want to give mine a Plasma pistol and would rather use the metal mini rather than the plastic one from the box which includes a PP. So I'm guessing in the narrow minds of some here it would be illegal for me to cut the BP off and swap it with a PP correct?

No. They are both modelling. One of them is considered modelling for advantage by some. Learn the distinction.

I wouldn't consider putting a PP on a Cadian that only came with a BP modeling for an advantage. How do you figure that?

Some People are calling me giving my Rune Priest a Force Sword or Frost Axe Modeling for Advantage, even though that is what they have, one for decades [In our group we allow this ] or my 1996 Chaplin with his Cutlass MFA even though it is the weapon it came with.

You have to remember you aren't following the rules if it is legal per the rules. At least some here believe that.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:You have to remember you aren't following the rules if it is legal per the rules. At least some here believe that.

The Issue here is that the Rune Weapon/Wolf Priest Crozius [Power Weapon] Debate will probably never be resolved.

Whether it was legal or not was not the point, it was I pull out my Wolf Priest with Power Axe Unmodified there are some who will scream Modeling for Advantage, just like those who cry when I pull out my G1 Terminators on there original 25mm Bases.

Anpu42 wrote:

Boss GreenNutz wrote:You have to remember you aren't following the rules if it is legal per the rules. At least some here believe that.

The Issue here is that the Rune Weapon/Wolf Priest Crozius [Power Weapon] Debate will probably never be resolved.

Whether it was legal or not was not the point, it was I pull out my Wolf Priest with Power Axe Unmodified there are some who will scream Modeling for Advantage, just like those who cry when I pull out my G1 Terminators on there original 25mm Bases.

Rune Weapons are Unusual Force Weapons though, aren't they?

Boss GreenNutz wrote:You have to remember you aren't following the rules if it is legal per the rules. At least some here believe that.

I'm following the rules by sticking the head of one of the models on my HWS a foot above his body.

I'm also following the rules by having everyone in my army lying down.

I'm also following the rules by rolling for my own reserves during YOUR turn.

Saying something is RAW does not automatically win an argument.
It is also, in this case, untrue. As has been said countless times, you have no RAW base to model whatever power weapon you like onto your model.

Same thing with my Mordian HWTs. They didn't come with a large base. Wonder if I am MFA if I put them on one since you evidently can't change what a model is supplied with out of the blister.

Saying something is RAW does not automatically win an argument.
It is also, in this case, untrue. As has been said countless times, you have no RAW base to model whatever power weapon you like onto your model.

Uhmmm yes I do. The rulebook says a power weapon is one of 4 types. Riddle me this. If I put a maul on a Crusader does he have a power weapon?

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Anpu42 wrote:

Boss GreenNutz wrote:You have to remember you aren't following the rules if it is legal per the rules. At least some here believe that.

The Issue here is that the Rune Weapon/Wolf Priest Crozius [Power Weapon] Debate will probably never be resolved.

Whether it was legal or not was not the point, it was I pull out my Wolf Priest with Power Axe Unmodified there are some who will scream Modeling for Advantage, just like those who cry when I pull out my G1 Terminators on there original 25mm Bases.

Rune Weapons are Unusual Force Weapons though, aren't they?

Rune weapons are unusual force weapons. They are force weapons with additional rules. Hence ap3 with initiative and strength of the user.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Rune Weapons are Unusual Force Weapons though, aren't they?

No. Force Weapons are Unusual if they have unique close combat rules. Runic Weapons have special rules... but they don't apply to close combat.

insaniak wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Rune Weapons are Unusual Force Weapons though, aren't they?

No. Force Weapons are Unusual if they have unique close combat rules. Runic Weapons have special rules... but they don't apply to close combat.

Wound daemons on a 2+? Not cc enough for ya?

Yeah, forgot about that one... I've had exactly two games against Daemons with my Wolves, and the Rune Priest didn't live long enough to hit anybody in either game

insaniak wrote:Yeah, forgot about that one... I've had exactly two games against Daemons with my Wolves, and the Rune Priest didn't live long enough to hit anybody in either game

It's fine, you never ever use a priest in combat unless you have no other choice. Not something that would come up very often.

insaniak wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Rune Weapons are Unusual Force Weapons though, aren't they?

No. Force Weapons are Unusual if they have unique close combat rules. Runic Weapons have special rules... but they don't apply to close combat.

Actually they do have the 2+ always wound Daemon thing going.
The thing about this debate is Nowhere does it say Runic Weapons are “Unusual Force Weapons” Many assume they are for there special abilities, just like the Grey Knights NFW are technically Unusual Force Weapons, but they remain the same.

Only GW knows what right and I am not going to hold my breath waiting for a FAQ to solve it, because I don’t think they will.

In a vain attempt to now get Back on Topic:
Choosing to use a Power Weapon as any of the four types listed is not Modeling For Advantage is no more wrong than using the kneeling legs for your Apothecary in your Command Squad.

Actually, Rune and NFW are pretty clearcut.

They are AP3/Strength regardless of shape (except Daemon Hammers, since they are specific).

kirsanth wrote:

Testify wrote:There is an advantage, as I have already posted. You can insist they are the same if you want.

Your perception of advantage is fine for you to have. The game, in this case however, actually has a value for this modeling. One of two things with the same points value, which is stated in the rules as relating their relative power (and thus advantage) cannot be (rightfully) called advantageous over the other.

"Knowing the points value your models gives you a way of reckoning your army's effectiveness."

Two armies identical except for for the varieties of power weapons are therefor exactly as effective as each other, neither has advantage according to the rules.

kirsanth has it correct.
with emphasis on "One of two things with the same points value, which is stated in the rules as relating their relative power (and thus advantage) cannot be (rightfully) called advantageous over the other."

They may have different battlefield roles, but neither is advantageous relative to the other.

liturgies of blood wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:Pants mandatory!

Yea, going to need a Page reference for where this is stated...

See the examples of how to play a game in the first pages of the book? Are the guys wearing pants? An explicit example of wearing pants while playing a game. Nothing in the rules says you have a choice in the matter.

Sorry had to bring this back up real quick. I would like to point out that while the people in the first pages of the book are in fact wearing pants, as it has been pointed out that part is not rules. Looking through the rules portion, I see exactly one person (and some hands) and the only thing we can tell for sure, is that the one person we see, has arrows coming out of his eyes. So we still need a page reference for pants being mandatory.

This can be dropped back into obscurity again.

Happyjew wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:Pants mandatory!

Yea, going to need a Page reference for where this is stated...

See the examples of how to play a game in the first pages of the book? Are the guys wearing pants? An explicit example of wearing pants while playing a game. Nothing in the rules says you have a choice in the matter.

Sorry had to bring this back up real quick. I would like to point out that while the people in the first pages of the book are in fact wearing pants, as it has been pointed out that part is not rules. Looking through the rules portion, I see exactly one person (and some hands) and the only thing we can tell for sure, is that the one person we see, has arrows coming out of his eyes. So we still need a page reference for pants being mandatory.

This can be dropped back into obscurity again.

I give in, there is no rule to say you must wear pants. I probably should otherwise I'll be sweeping models off the table as I turn :p

Badum ching.

IMO, generally people who argue that Modelling For Wargear is Modelling For Advantage seem to be huge hypocrites, because they're so selective about what MFW is MFA and because they're diluting MFA term with items that never before were considered MFA.

Prior 6e, no-one in their right minds would have argued that putting Extra Armour on vehicle is MFA, or that replacing Lascannon from Leman Russ with Heavy Bolter is MFA, or that Assault Cannons or heavy Flamers on Razorbacks are MFA.
Note that each of these things is just as MFA as giving Crusader power axe instead of power sword.

Luide wrote:Prior 6e, no-one in their right minds would have argued that putting Extra Armour on vehicle is MFA, or that replacing Lascannon from Leman Russ with Heavy Bolter is MFA, or that Assault Cannons or heavy Flamers on Razorbacks are MFA.
Note that each of these things is just as MFA as giving Crusader power axe instead of power sword.

Well the opposing argument some are making is that those alterations cost a point value, as opposed to then new power weapons being 'free', and so the advantage is 'paid for' as it were.

However, I agree with those who then pointed out that if GW had intended for there to be a different cost, they wouldn't have presented the power weapon rules in the manner provided. Power fists, for example, still cost points because they dramatically increase strength and AP. Power axes are a minor Str advantage, but with all the negative effects that I1 provides, and so aren't 'good' enough to warrant an extra cost.

Maybe it will be FAQ'd, but I doubt it.

DoW

Death Cult Assassins with 1 Power Weapon and 1 Power Maul get a huge upgrade for free. I own 27 of them and I am not doing any MFA until I see an FAQ. I just think it is a bad idea to make something that is very contentious a part of your army.

How is this a topic..... its not even debatable as they are not special or characters.... I already gave mine lances and mauls.

 Shinkaze wrote:
Death Cult Assassins with 1 Power Weapon and 1 Power Maul get a huge upgrade for free. I own 27 of them and I am not doing any MFA until I see an FAQ. I just think it is a bad idea to make something that is very contentious a part of your army.

Do you realize that both current models for DCA are not legal?

one has two swords, neither of which is a power weapon, and the other has one power sword, and no second weapon.

you have to do some modeling to make them legal, as they do not have the correct wargear.

Just put the Axes on your Crusaders and take them to a tourney. If someone raises a stink report them to the tournament organizer and laugh as he (or she) gets thrown out.

Thread is being locked due to thread necromancy.