According to the BA codex, The Sanguinor simply has a 'glaive encarmine' as his wargear.

In the BA 6th edition FAQ it states that for the purposes of classification, Sanguinary Guard's weapons are WYSIWYG in terms of determining whether they're carrying a master crafted power sword, or master crafted power ax. These is no point change for sword v. ax.

Given this, could one kit bash a Sanguinor model, changing the sword to an ax giving him a master crafted power ax as his glaive encarmine?

Ask your TO. That is the only answer that can be given, each TO may take a different position on it.

In my mind however this is clearly MFA.

Literally? yes. (as there is nothing in the sanguinor's wargear section to indicate he is carrying a sword specifically).

Wether or not such constitutes 'modelling for advantage'? is a subject i leave to those much more interested in debating such.

As per raw you get to model the glaive however you want according to the brb and then the FAQ supports that

Yes, you can alter the Sanguinor to have an Axe if you want.

For anyone that is claiming it is RAW to model a special character as you want with different wargear from the GW model.. where is it written?

 liturgies of blood wrote:
For anyone that is claiming it is RAW to model a special character as you want.. where is it written?

The same place it is written that you are allowed to assemble, paint and convert your models. Hint: They are all in the same place.

As there are no rules covering how to assemble or convert your own models, it is perfectly legal. Because some models that are legal to field within the rules MUST be converted. For example, there is no Sanguinary Priest in TDA model. So any SP in TDA has to be a converted kitbash.

And you can't say its ok for some models and not others.



So unless a particular model's rules state what weapon exactly it is armed with you are free to model it as you please.

Glaives have been FAQd to be either a MC Sword or MC Axe. The Sanguinor has a Glaive Encarmine, which can be a sword or an axe.

 Grey Templar wrote:
As there are no rules covering how to assemble or convert your own models, it is perfectly legal. Because some models that are legal to field within the rules MUST be converted. For example, there is no Sanguinary Priest in TDA model. So any SP in TDA has to be a converted kitbash.

And you can't say its ok for some models and not others.



So unless a particular model's rules state what weapon exactly it is armed with you are free to model it as you please.

Glaives have been FAQd to be either a MC Sword or MC Axe. The Sanguinor has a Glaive Encarmine, which can be a sword or an axe.

That line of logic falls down when you have models that exist in the GW catalogue. Yes you can say it's ok for some and not for others, the models you need to convert to make such at TDA priests others exist and are special characters. Special characters have set weapons and wargear to go with their rules.

A glaive encarmine can be a sword or an axe, where does it say that you may model it as such? Or in this case re-model it.

Don't get me wrong I love converting models but RAW is not Rules that I want to see.

Technically, Sanguinor comes with no weapon attached to him in the package. And since there are no rules that allow you to assemble his sword to the rest of his body, doing so is modelling for advantage.

There are NO rules for Converting, Assembly or Painting. It is not part of the rulebook. So anyone who says that it is okay to Convert, Assemble or Paint from a rules perspective is wrong. That being said, it is generally accepted that Converting, Assembling and Painting are okay.

Some people draw the line at some types of conversion, but that is a personal preference and not a rules difference.

Thats mearely an assumption. You assume that special characters have their wargear set in stone.

This is true for most as they eplicitly say what they have.

However the Sanguinor does not explicitly define what he has.


Plus there is nothing that prevents you from scratch building your own version of an existing model.

My buddy made a Belial conversion using Lysander. You are not required to use the official model. Only that it be WYSIWYG.


WYSIWYG, is a converted Sanguinor with an Axe armed with a Glaive Encarmine? Yes, he has a fancy looking Axe, which is a legal form of a Glaive Encarmine.

A Mace or a Lance would NOT be a legal conversion as Glaive Encarmines are said to be either Axes or Swords.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thats mearely an assumption. You assume that special characters have their wargear set in stone.

This is true for most as they eplicitly say what they have.

However the Sanguinor does not explicitly define what he has.


Plus there is nothing that prevents you from scratch building your own version of an existing model.

My buddy made a Belial conversion using Lysander. You are not required to use the official model. Only that it be WYSIWYG.


WYSIWYG, is a converted Sanguinor with an Axe armed with a Glaive Encarmine? Yes, he has a fancy looking Axe, which is a legal form of a Glaive Encarmine.

A Mace or a Lance would NOT be a legal conversion as Glaive Encarmines are said to be either Axes or Swords.

Assumptions? Me? Mirror much?
Special characters do have their wargear set in stone... calgar has a choice of armour but he has 2 pf and a sword. not 2pf and a power weapon of your choice.
Lukas the trickster is wolf claw and plasma pistol.

Also the sanguinor does come with a weapon attached, the body and arms are 1 piece, the wings and jump pack are the final 3 pieces.

Whoops, my bad. I'm thinking of the dude with the axe over his head.

Either way, Sanguinor does not have a wargear option of Glaive Encarmine (Sword) listed in his profile.

 pretre wrote:
Whoops, my bad. I'm thinking of the dude with the axe over his head.

Either way, Sanguinor does not have a wargear option of Glaive Encarmine (Sword) listed in his profile.

True, but that entry was from before 6th, when all PW were the same.

As the actual, physical model comes with a sword, I would say it is modelling for advantage in this case, and lobby for not allowing it in a tournament. Friendly games are just that, and it really wouldn't matter, but I feel you have to abide by the rules in tournaments.

And as to people who model their own special characters, as long as the gear mirrors the gear from the original models, that is fine. But changing the gear isn't acceptable. And using Belial as an example doesn't really work, as he doesn't have a model, only rules. So modelling him is physically mandatory if you want to use him, and he just have to abide by his wargear from his rules. But I can't change Abaddon's weapons to a power maul and storm shield because I think it looks awesome(which it would not).

Salacious Greed wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Whoops, my bad. I'm thinking of the dude with the axe over his head.

Either way, Sanguinor does not have a wargear option of Glaive Encarmine (Sword) listed in his profile.

True, but that entry was from before 6th, when all PW were the same.

As the actual, physical model comes with a sword, I would say it is modelling for advantage in this case, and lobby for not allowing it in a tournament. Friendly games are just that, and it really wouldn't matter, but I feel you have to abide by the rules in tournaments.

And as to people who model their own special characters, as long as the gear mirrors the gear from the original models, that is fine. But changing the gear isn't acceptable. And using Belial as an example doesn't really work, as he doesn't have a model, only rules. So modelling him is physically mandatory if you want to use him, and he just have to abide by his wargear from his rules. But I can't change Abaddon's weapons to a power maul and storm shield because I think it looks awesome(which it would not).

But the issue of "what is a Glaive Encarime?" is addressed in the FAQ. Even if it doesn't specifically address Sanguinor, it says that a Glaive is either an axe or a sword. Thus, RAW, it's perfectly legal to choose option A, Axe, rather than option B, Sword.

Abbaddon, however, has weapons which are clearly spelled out in his rules. So, you can't change them.

Salacious Greed wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Whoops, my bad. I'm thinking of the dude with the axe over his head.

Either way, Sanguinor does not have a wargear option of Glaive Encarmine (Sword) listed in his profile.

True, but that entry was from before 6th, when all PW were the same.

As the actual, physical model comes with a sword, I would say it is modelling for advantage in this case, and lobby for not allowing it in a tournament. Friendly games are just that, and it really wouldn't matter, but I feel you have to abide by the rules in tournaments.

And as to people who model their own special characters, as long as the gear mirrors the gear from the original models, that is fine. But changing the gear isn't acceptable. And using Belial as an example doesn't really work, as he doesn't have a model, only rules. So modelling him is physically mandatory if you want to use him, and he just have to abide by his wargear from his rules. But I can't change Abaddon's weapons to a power maul and storm shield because I think it looks awesome(which it would not).

Problem is that they have clearly FAQ'd units with parenthetical updates when they wanted it to be a specific type (rune priests, for example). They have not done that with Sanguinor. You couldn't change Abaddon's weapons because he has two clearly defined weapons that the representation doesn't matter on.

Oh for the love of pete theres a FAQ about it and the kit comes with axes and swords. So yes if you want all of them to have the GE axe insted of the sword then by all means have at it.

Lungpickle wrote:
Oh for the love of pete theres a FAQ about it and the kit comes with axes and swords. So yes if you want all of them to have the GE axe insted of the sword then by all means have at it.

The question is for the Sanguinor, not Sanguinary Guard. I don't believe the Sanguinor kit comes with an axe.

Question still seems to have been answered, though.

Lungpickle wrote:
Oh for the love of pete theres a FAQ about it and the kit comes with axes and swords. So yes if you want all of them to have the GE axe insted of the sword then by all means have at it.

Find an axe in there and I will give you 50 of whatever currency you use.
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440191a&prodId=prod1700035a

 liturgies of blood wrote:

Lungpickle wrote:
Oh for the love of pete theres a FAQ about it and the kit comes with axes and swords. So yes if you want all of them to have the GE axe insted of the sword then by all means have at it.

Find an axe in there and I will give you 50 of whatever currency you use.
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440191a&prodId=prod1700035a

He was talking about the Sanguinary guard.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440192a&prodId=prod680007a

Not having an option is not evidence you can't change it.

Tactical Marine boxes don't have Power Axes, Lances, or Mauls. Yet you would never say they arn't a legal option to put on the model.

What about Sternguard and Combi-flamers? There is no Combi-flamer option anywhere in GWs product line.

There is an upgrade pack. You should look at it. Combi-flamer exists.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440277a&prodId=prod1710018a


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

Lungpickle wrote:
Oh for the love of pete theres a FAQ about it and the kit comes with axes and swords. So yes if you want all of them to have the GE axe insted of the sword then by all means have at it.

Find an axe in there and I will give you 50 of whatever currency you use.
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440191a&prodId=prod1700035a

He was talking about the Sanguinary guard.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440192a&prodId=prod680007a

Yes he was and I was showing him what we were talking about. It's not the same as sanguinary guard since they have weapons options.

Going to just go with a "No" for changing the weapons on named characters, as it stands sanguinary guard I'd call it MFA.

My only problem is that the weapons name tells you what it is. It is a "Glaive" which is a pole-arm with a sword on it. So it is a sword. If it was an axe like weapon I believe it would be a halbred....

BUT the FAQ says that a Glaive Encarmine (spelling?) is a Power Sword or Power Axe.

I'd say it would be ok, you aren't breaking any rules. Unless GW FAQs it...

emptyedens wrote:
My only problem is that the weapons name tells you what it is. It is a "Glaive" which is a pole-arm with a sword on it. So it is a sword. If it was an axe like weapon I believe it would be a halbred....

Your definition is very dependent on if you are in future france or future britain. A glaive is used to refer to pole-arms that look like both swords or axes depending where you are from.

The definition of which weapon the sanguinor is armed with was already taken care of by the GW design team.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
The definition of which weapon the sanguinor is armed with was already taken care of by the GW design team.

Yes it has, he has a Glaive Encarmine.

And Glaive Encarmines have their own FaQ:

"Q: Are Glaive Encarmines treated as ‘unusual power weapons’ (and
therefore AP 3), or do they follow the rules for power axes/swords as
defined by the type of weapon the model is carrying? (p50)
A: Glaive Encarmines follow the rules as described in the Types
of Power Weapon section on page 61 of the Warhammer 40,000
rulebook, but also have the Master-crafted and Two-handed
special rules. They would therefore have the following profiles.

Range S AP Type
Glaive Encarmine(Sword)
Range: -
S: User
AP: 3
Type: Melee, Master-crafted, Two-handed.

Glaive Encarmine(Axe)
Range: -
S: +1
AP: 2
Type: Melee, Master-crafted, Two-handed, Unwieldy" P.4 GW FaQ

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2570037a_Blood_Angels_v1.1.pdf

So a sword follows the first profile, an axe the second.

LOL oh well there is something to be learned here. I need to read slower and more times than once.. ya well sanguinor comes with a sword so im thinking anything else is just lame.

Lungpickle wrote:
LOL oh well there is something to be learned here. I need to read slower and more times than once.. ya well sanguinor comes with a sword so im thinking anything else is just lame.

The Sanguinor's wargear lists a Glaive Encarmine. "A Glaive Encarmine is a Two-Handed master -crafted power weapon." Page 50 BA codex.
along with the FaQ it is either a sword or an axe.

And along with GW's model it is a sword.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
And along with GW's model it is a sword.

Right, if you run an unconverted model produced by GW. If you scratch built a model, what prevents you from modeling the glaive as an axe?

Good taste.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
And along with GW's model it is a sword.

a lot of models do not come with all their options.

Unless you are saying a Dreadnought can never have two twin linked autocannons...

Yeah but that argument has no baring on this situation. If you had a range of weapons in some Belial-esque character that would be fine but this ins't analogous.

Point being that the only thing that matters is the wargear that is listed in the codex.

and all that is listed for the Sanguinor is a Glaive Encarmine.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Point being that the only thing that matters is the wargear that is listed in the codex.

Exactly so. The Tactical Squad box doesn't come with all the heavy weapons options either, but according to the Codex they can buy other HV than the missile launcher.

Not that I see why anyone would give the Sanguinor an Unweildy axe and have him strike last, but they can. ;-)

We are talking about named characters with no options here, not other stuff. The only named character that I can think of that has an option to upgrade something is koresso karn, who can buy a bike, and all you do is slice his model in half and glue it to legs.

Named characters should always use what it shows they come with, and you blood angel player should really stop crying over this edition change.

"It" (the codex) says he comes with a glaive encarmine.
That weapon has 2 profiles defined.
Why are you denying the ability to use either one?

 juraigamer wrote:
We are talking about named characters with no options here, not other stuff. The only named character that I can think of that has an option to upgrade something is koresso karn, who can buy a bike, and all you do is slice his model in half and glue it to legs.

No, we are talking about a named character that does have options, per FAQ. The codex states he wields a glaive encarmine, which used to be clear enough as there was no distinction between axes, halberds, swords and a curled up newspaper. Now in 6th there's a distinction and loads of weapons needed to be FAQ'd to determine which they were. Per the FAQ the glaive encarmine was ruled to be a sword OR an axe. See the option here?

In what way is it MFA to give a model a piece of wargear that the codex allows it to have?

By saying you can't model anything with something that doesn't come in the box, are you saying I can't have sanguinary guards with 5 axes? or 5 swords? there's only so many of each in one box? How about models that have options that haven't even been released by GW, like the beforementioned TL AC dreadnought? Would be a shame to call that MFA wouldnt it?

Named characters should always use what it shows they come with, and you blood angel player should really stop crying over this edition change.

The codex shows the Sanguinor to wield either an axe or a sword. Clear enough for me?
And please, don't point at Blood Angel players for crying over 6th edition. This is a normal rules discussion, no need to make this personal in any way... Everyone has things they do and thigns they don't like about 6th edition, not only BA players...

In reality it is the same situation as the GK Death Cult assassins that have two power weapons in the codex entry, and people saying they are stuck with power swords because the only GW model that is out there right now has swords.

But wait, If you look at the GW model for Death Cult assassins they do not even have two power swords. One has two non powered swords, the other model has a single power sword.

So can we even use Death Cult assassins since they do not even have the wargear listed in their entry?

 DeathReaper wrote:
In reality it is the same situation as the GK Death Cult assassins that have two power weapons in the codex entry, and people saying they are stuck with power swords because the only GW model that is out there right now has swords.

But wait, If you look at the GW model for Death Cult assassins they do not even have two power swords. One has two non powered swords, the other model has a single power sword.

So can we even use Death Cult assassins since they do not even have the wargear listed in their entry?

Well bugger! I'd better sell all those DCA's then, as they're now illegal to use! [/sarcasm]
I don't get why people don't understand that GW has not and will not release a mini for each codex entry possible... sometimes you will need to convert a model to get the option you want

Gentleman you keep talking about options as if there is one in here. Gw made the model, sanguinor has a sword. Same as calgar etc. If you want to model the guy with an axe thats your choice but where does the option to take either come in?
In every other instance of mfa we say look at the gw model and go by that. Why is this different?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is not dca, they are not a special unique character. The thing about a unique model is that it has one form only. Do I get the option to put an axe on mephiston cos it looks cool when he cuts terminators in two?

The option is in the fact that Glaive Encarmines are either a MC power sword or a PC power axe.

Just like a model with a regular power weapon has the option to have a Sword, Axe, Lance, or Maul.

So yes to axe mephiston?

This is not dca, they are not a special unique character. The thing about a unique model is that it has one form only. Do I get the option to put an axe on mephiston cos it looks cool when he cuts terminators in two?

So my friend has a both a converted Abaddon and Ahriman. Since they're not the specific Abaddon and Ahriman models I can't let him use them since GW has specific models?

As for Mephiston, If his weapon simply reads 'Force Weapon.' Then yeah, you could give him a Force Axe(Not sure why you would though.). If it says Force Sword then he's stuck with a sword.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Gentleman you keep talking about options as if there is one in here. Gw made the model, sanguinor has a sword. Same as calgar etc. If you want to model the guy with an axe thats your choice but where does the option to take either come in?
In every other instance of mfa we say look at the gw model and go by that. Why is this different?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is not dca, they are not a special unique character. The thing about a unique model is that it has one form only. Do I get the option to put an axe on mephiston cos it looks cool when he cuts terminators in two?

The difference with the Calgar model is that Calgar's model represents his codex entry, as there is no choice of weapons.
The difference with Mephiston is that Mephiston has a codex entry reading Force Sword, which is clear as day as it doesn't say 'weapon' instead of 'sword'.
The FAQ states that a Glaive Encarmine is either a Sword or an Axe. The codex gives the Sanguinor a Glaive Encarmine. Thus indirectly the codex allows for the Sanguinor to have an axe instead of a sword. This means that converting the Sanguinor to be wielding an axe is 100% codex legal, and therefor not MFA.

Is it RAW? Absolutely. Does GW intend to give you this choice? It might be an oversight, but right now RAW you're allowed this choice.

Jirin wrote:As for Mephiston, If his weapon simply reads 'Force Weapon.' Then yeah, you could give him a Force Axe(Not sure why you would though.). If it says Force Sword then he's stuck with a sword.

Mephiston lost a lot of fighting power due to being AP3, so personally I'ld love to give him an axe but right now it's not a legal option as the codex gives him a Sword.

If his entry says "Force Weapon" then yes. But if it says Force Sword then he's stuck with that.

Edit: damn Ninjas

Jirin wrote:

This is not dca, they are not a special unique character. The thing about a unique model is that it has one form only. Do I get the option to put an axe on mephiston cos it looks cool when he cuts terminators in two?

So my friend has a both a converted Abaddon and Ahriman. Since they're not the specific Abaddon and Ahriman models I can't let him use them since GW has specific models?

As for Mephiston, If his weapon simply reads 'Force Weapon.' Then yeah, you could give him a Force Axe(Not sure why you would though.). If it says Force Sword then he's stuck with a sword.

No but you play them as the gw models, facetious points are still just that.

Surely buying the sanguinor and modelling him in the first place is MFA? Surely purchasing a power weapon and then modelling my tactical sergeant, from a box which, doesn't come with a power maul then using other parts to give him a power maul is modelling for advantage according to a lot of the "This is MFA!" Points.

So if this if this is the case..... Dante can have a sword?

Lucarikx

Modelling for advantage suggests that you are changing a model because the physical change makes the model better in some way.

Sure it could be argued that the axe is better than the sword but it's subjective. The sword allows him to use his I6 whereas the axe doesn't, so by modelling the axe, you're actually slowing him down.

I believe that you can give him an axe or sword perfectly legally as per GW's rules, and it's the rules that matter above anything else.

 Lucarikx wrote:
So if this if this is the case..... Dante can have a sword?

Lucarikx

No, his rules explicitly state he has an Axe. Unlike the Sanguinor.

My Sanguinor is converted (is a counts as model) and uses an axe. I fail to see how the models that GW sells have any bearing on the rules?

GW is wrong in cailling it a glaive. A glaive is a pole-arm and much more like an axe than a sword anyway.

Irrelevant, GW could call a Dog a Cat in the rules. It would have no bearing on the rules in those instances.


Just like a Nemesis Force Halberd isn't a Force Axe. Its a unique force weapon.

 lunarman wrote:
My Sanguinor is converted (is a counts as model) and uses an axe. I fail to see how the models that GW sells have any bearing on the rules?

Well try to remember that line with people that have 3" tall Tervigons or crouching space marines or scratch build stormravens that don't resemble the box model at all.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 lunarman wrote:
My Sanguinor is converted (is a counts as model) and uses an axe. I fail to see how the models that GW sells have any bearing on the rules?

Well try to remember that line with people that have 3" tall Tervigons or crouching space marines or scratch build stormravens that don't resemble the box model at all.

That's different. Your example there is modelling for advantage and is unacceptable. Modelling an axe instead of a sword is different, especially since the rules allow the Sanguinor to have either.

I do not buy that in every case a power sword is just as good as an axe. There are plenty of examples off the top of my head where one type of power weapon is so much better than the others.

How is switching a combat monster to be ap2 instead of ap3 not MFA?

Because everything either hits before or at the same time as him...

Yes, he's now AP2 with +1 str, but powerfists can take him out as he takes them out and everything else will just smash him with a good number of hits.

It's a fairly even trade off, you either strike before with less cutting power or strike last with insane cutting power, but in doing so let everything able to try to take you out...

 liturgies of blood wrote:
I do not buy that in every case a power sword is just as good as an axe. There are plenty of examples off the top of my head where one type of power weapon is so much better than the others.

How is switching a combat monster to be ap2 instead of ap3 not MFA?

According to you any upgrade you give any model would then be modelling for advantage? My sergeant could perform loads better with a lightning claw; MFA! Even though its perfectly legal?
Giving a named character a weapon the codex doesn't allow it to have is illegal. but as I've explaned before the rules allow sanguinor to take an axe

Since the BA codex and all updates fail to define a specific choice that sanguinor MUST take, there is no precedent to over-rule the brb. Which as you all know states that the weapon in play will use the rules for whatever it's modeled as. a Glaive Encarmine may be either an axe or sword.

While rules are written with model characteristics in mind to some extent, all power weapons are of "equal value" according to the brb. With no actual restriction on what type of glaive is used, as long as the model has the type you want both an axe or sword are Legal and Raw. If something IS allowed in the RULES it can not be MFA, regardless what a retail product has modeled on it.

No, i see that on certain units certain power weapons are optimal. Give me the quote that allows you to build the sanguinor with an axe. All I have seen is the faq which does not mention modelling at all.

Putting a legal option on a unit that allows.for options is fine. The sanguinor is not one of the few special characters with options. In ever other case where you build a.custom model you go by the gw loadout. This is easter egging.

There is no RAW for modelling, conversions, painting or assembly.

Simply accept that it is currently a vagueness in the rules and let it go. If you have a question or think that your interpretation may not be accepted, then discuss it with your TO/Opponent before the game/event.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
No, i see that on certain units certain power weapons are optimal. Give me the quote that allows you to build the sanguinor with an axe. All I have seen is the faq which does not mention modelling at all.

Give us the quote where it says you cant.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Give me the quote that allows you to build the sanguinor with an axe.

Give us the quote that allows you to build the sanquinor with a sword.

EDIT:
In fact, give us a quote that allows us to build the sanguinor.

How is modelling a Glaive as an axe MFA?

Power swords and power axes both cost the same amount of points, and they are both better in certain situations.

I put it to you that NOT modelling the Glaive Encarmine as a power axe is MFA,

Just to clarify, MFA is not a rule in the ruleset and never has been. Its a fabrication of the playerbase.

And it actually covers things like posing a wraithlord to be crawling on its belly, having all your Fire Warriors be kneeling, putting Gabrial Seth on a 40mm base so he can get more models in Btb for his sweep attack, etc...

It does NOT cover giving a model an option it has legal access to.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Give me the quote that allows you to build the sanguinor with an axe.

Give us the quote that allows you to build the sanquinor with a sword.

EDIT:
In fact, give us a quote that allows us to build the sanguinor.

Page 3, Models and bases. Models are mounted on bases... if it's not assembled it's not the model it's part of a model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 blood lance wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
No, i see that on certain units certain power weapons are optimal. Give me the quote that allows you to build the sanguinor with an axe. All I have seen is the faq which does not mention modelling at all.

Give us the quote where it says you cant.

40k doesn't work with rules that say you cannot, very few games do. It works with rules that allow for something.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
40k doesn't work with rules that say you cannot, very few games do. It works with rules that allow for something.

And the rules do say a Glaive Encarmine is either an axe or a sword. I don't see why the Sanguinor having an axe is any different than swapping out the power weapons of Sergeants etc for the one you want.

Spetulhu wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
40k doesn't work with rules that say you cannot, very few games do. It works with rules that allow for something.

And the rules do say a Glaive Encarmine is either an axe or a sword. I don't see why the Sanguinor having an axe is any different than swapping out the power weapons of Sergeants etc for the one you want.

Well tbh his is modeled as a sword.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
40k doesn't work with rules that say you cannot, very few games do. It works with rules that allow for something.

And the rules do say a Glaive Encarmine is either an axe or a sword. I don't see why the Sanguinor having an axe is any different than swapping out the power weapons of Sergeants etc for the one you want.

Well tbh his is modeled as a sword.

And Blood Angel Librarians are modeled with a few different options, but none of them are Terminator Armor and a Storm Shield. Does that mean, even though it is a legal choice in the codex, they are not allowed to take this setup because they are not modeled that way and you would have to convert/kitbash to get this setup?

The option he has is the same option any model with 'a power weapon' has, though limited to two choices. Where the codex says 'power weapon' you have a choice in 6th between sword, axe, maul annd spear or something, though the codex doesn't mention these kinds of weapons. So modelling my SM Captain with a maul would be MFA as well I suppose?

 DeathReaper wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
40k doesn't work with rules that say you cannot, very few games do. It works with rules that allow for something.

And the rules do say a Glaive Encarmine is either an axe or a sword. I don't see why the Sanguinor having an axe is any different than swapping out the power weapons of Sergeants etc for the one you want.

Well tbh his is modeled as a sword.

And Blood Angel Librarians are modeled with a few different options, but none of them are Terminator Armor and a Storm Shield. Does that mean, even though it is a legal choice in the codex, they are not allowed to take this setup because they are not modeled that way and you would have to convert/kitbash to get this setup?

Just stating there is a difference that is all.

 pretre wrote:
There is no RAW for modelling, conversions, painting or assembly.

Simply accept that it is currently a vagueness in the rules and let it go. If you have a question or think that your interpretation may not be accepted, then discuss it with your TO/Opponent before the game/event.

not true. RaW allows you to use citadel models there is no RaW allowing converted models so RaW is no conversions. RaW the sanguinor has a sword as that is what the citadel miniature has.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Blood Angel Librarians are modeled with a few different options, but none of them are Terminator Armor and a Storm Shield. Does that mean, even though it is a legal choice in the codex, they are not allowed to take this setup because they are not modeled that way and you would have to convert/kitbash to get this setup?

Just stating there is a difference that is all.

Care to explain the difference, because I see no difference between the two examples.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 pretre wrote:
There is no RAW for modelling, conversions, painting or assembly.

Simply accept that it is currently a vagueness in the rules and let it go. If you have a question or think that your interpretation may not be accepted, then discuss it with your TO/Opponent before the game/event.

not true. RaW allows you to use citadel models there is no RaW allowing converted models so RaW is no conversions. RaW the sanguinor has a sword as that is what the citadel miniature has.

There is no RaW allowing painting and assembly, unless you have page numbers to the contrary.

So either provide page numbers, or accept that it is currently a vagueness in the rules and let it go.

Page 2 allows you to use citadel miniatures. Which by definition require assembly. Please provide a page saying you can use non-citadel miniatures or you can't by RaW.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Page 2 allows you to use citadel miniatures. Which by definition require assembly. Please provide a page saying you can use non-citadel miniatures or you can't by RaW.

No such definition occurs in the rules. So according to the rules you quoted, you should be playing with sprues, or piles of clipped bits, glued to bases. Also, heaven help you if paint your minis since that is clearly not allowed in the rules.

We're not saying that you can't assemble your minis. We are saying that there is as much rules backup for using assembled minis as there are converted, painted or kitbashed minis. I.e. None.

The rules don't define "the" either. Fortunately there is a definition for citadel miniatures so unless the rules change that we go with the status quo.

 FlingitNow wrote:
The rules don't define "the" either. Fortunately there is a definition for citadel miniatures so unless the rules change that we go with the status quo.

Actually, there is no definition of Citadel Miniatures either. There is a definition of model which says that they are Citadel Miniatures.

The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer
40,000 are referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow.

Accept the fact that assembly, conversion, kitbashing and painting are not covered under the rules unless you can show someplace they are.

Changing a sanguinary guards melee weapon is all well and good, but named characters? No. If you scratch build the named character, he needs a sword.

All this nonsense coming from blood angels players, did you see CSM players saying they wanted to chop off kharn's axe for a sword then 6th came out?

Changing the sanguinor's sword to an axe is clearly MFA, you can do it, the rules all you to do it, but it's MFA. You can deny it all you want, you can search for rules that allow you to feel better about yourself, you can make up fluff as to why he changed weapons, but at the end of the day you still Modeled For Advantage.

Did you even read my reply? Your answers are there. Nothing in the rules allows conversions or kitbashes. You are allowed to use citadel miniatures. Is there a citadel miniature for the sanguinor? If there is a citadel produced miniature of the sanguinor with an axe them raw you can use him with an axe otherwise...

Yes fling, I read it, but the modeling aspect of the hobby and the rules sometimes conflict, thus common sense is needed.

In 5th, by RAW if you didn't have eyes on non-vehicle models, they couldn't shoot. Only asses enforced that.

As for power weapons in 6th, there is some muddy water, but at the end of the day there is no harm in allowing normal units to change their modeled weapon. I draw the line at named characters however, they have a specific model, that looks a specific way.

You can hunt all over the ages for old models with different weapons on them, but in fairness allowing conversions for them is fine by me. You won't find named characters with different weapons than they have now, however.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Did you even read my reply? Your answers are there. Nothing in the rules allows conversions or kitbashes. You are allowed to use citadel miniatures. Is there a citadel miniature for the sanguinor? If there is a citadel produced miniature of the sanguinor with an axe them raw you can use him with an axe otherwise...

Is this a legal model for 40k?

After all it is a citadel miniature.

There are no rules that say you can assemble the citadel miniature for the sanguinor or paint him and there are not even any rules for what a citadel miniature is. Prove otherwise.

Juraigamer yes i get that and I'm not saying i would enforce raw here because that would be cheating. However anyone changing a special character is to me mfa. I was simply stating what the raw is.

Pretre check my previous post for how we define a citadel miniature and why the rulebook doesn't need to.

Wish people would stop arguing other posters intentions. I'd be fine with sanguinor with an axe and I don't play any marine flavour, nevermind BA.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Pretre check my previous post for how we define a citadel miniature and why the rulebook doesn't need to.

Yeah... You said we don't need to define it because we also don't need to define the. Good times.

So about that defining Citadel Miniatures thing. Or about any rules reference for assembly, painting, converting or kitbashing. Yeah, there is no rules reference for any of that. All of those things are external to the rules and an agreement between players when they come to a table together. MFA is the same thing. There is no rule for modelling for advantage because there is no rule for modelling. It is up to the players to decide when they approach the table how to handle it.

What these threads really come down to is that there are two groups of people:
- People who would play against a Sanguinor with an Axe
- People who wouldn't play against a Sanguinor with an Axe

Neither group has any rules support for their position. Both groups are relying on the implied social compact that you enter with the other player to determine whether the game occurs or not.

Anyone who claims that their side has rules to backup their ability to model, assemble, paint, kitbash or convert a miniature is incorrect (I would love to be proven wrong on this, please provide a page number).

Those that say the sanguinor doesn't have an axe do have raw on their side as well as the rules. The intention for the sanguinor to have a sword is pretty clear.

 pretre wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Pretre check my previous post for how we define a citadel miniature and why the rulebook doesn't need to.

Yeah... You said we don't need to define it because we also don't need to define the. Good times.

So about that defining Citadel Miniatures thing. Or about any rules reference for assembly, painting, converting or kitbashing. Yeah, there is no rules reference for any of that. All of those things are external to the rules and an agreement between players when they come to a table together. MFA is the same thing. There is no rule for modelling for advantage because there is no rule for modelling. It is up to the players to decide when they approach the table how to handle it.

What these threads really come down to is that there are two groups of people:
- People who would play against a Sanguinor with an Axe
- People who wouldn't play against a Sanguinor with an Axe

Neither group has any rules support for their position. Both groups are relying on the implied social compact that you enter with the other player to determine whether the game occurs or not.

Anyone who claims that their side has rules to backup their ability to model, assemble, paint, kitbash or convert a miniature is incorrect (I would love to be proven wrong on this, please provide a page number).

I feel that this kind of ends the thread. I agree whole heartedly.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Those that say the sanguinor doesn't have an axe do have raw on their side as well as the rules. The intention for the sanguinor to have a sword is pretty clear.

This is factually incorrect.

Please quote the rules where Sanguinor is listed as not having an axe.
Please quote the rules where Sanguinor is listed as not having a sword.
Please quote the rules where the Citadel Sanguinor mini is the only acceptable Citadel model to represent the Sanguinor.

I'll save you time. There are none.

I don't need to i produced the rules that allow you to use the sanguinor model made by citadel. You need permission to use a different model. Show me that and then raw you can. It is a permissive ruleset.

Where is there permission to use a model that GW doesn't make a specific model for?

Guess you can't give Sanguinary Priests any options besides chainswords and bolt pistols.

 FlingitNow wrote:
I don't need to i produced the rules that allow you to use the sanguinor model made by citadel. You need permission to use a different model. Show me that and then raw you can. It is a permissive ruleset.

lol. Ahh permissive ruleset. That's a good fallback when you have no other argument.

The fact is that although the models tell you that you have to use Citadel Miniatures, they never tell you which ones or what you need to do with them. You are assuming that when they say Citadel Miniatures, they mean the ones of the same name. There is, however, no RAW to backup your assumption. Just as there is no RAW that says you can assemble, paint, convert, kitbash, remove from sprue or otherwise manipulate (other than to glue it to the base) a stock citadel model.

I am not saying that I have RAW to support my contention that you can modify miniatures. I am in fact saying the opposite. Neither side of the MFA argument has any RAW to back them up because the rules are completely silent on miniatures except for two things:
- Models = Citadel Miniatures
- Models should be attached to the base they came with

Anything regarding models outside of those two points is speculation or assumption and not RAW.

In the FAQ they don't address the Sanguinor's weapon. They do address the Glaive Encarmines as being two distinct options. it's difficult to claim MFA when there is a pretty massive disadvantage. The fact is power axes and swords cost the same and give advantages and disadvantages. Until a rule comes out that clearly states which of the two options are available to Sanguinor the rules are written in a way that the hobbyist can give him a bad ass axe.

 FlingitNow wrote:
I don't need to i produced the rules that allow you to use the sanguinor model made by citadel. You need permission to use a different model. Show me that and then raw you can. It is a permissive ruleset.

So the Doom of Malantai is illegal to field. As is the Paradite of Mortrex. And Shrikes. And flying Rippers. And Tyranid Primes.

That's just out of the codex I'm most familiar with.

Sang Priests in TDA
Razorbacks with anything but HB/TLL
Rifleman Dreads
Penal Legionaires
Medusa
Colossus
Griffin
Bane Wolf
Devil Dog
Vendetta



Automatically Appended Next Post:
There's a ton of stuff that has no citadel model.

rigeld2 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
I don't need to i produced the rules that allow you to use the sanguinor model made by citadel. You need permission to use a different model. Show me that and then raw you can. It is a permissive ruleset.

So the Doom of Malantai is illegal to field. As is the Paradite of Mortrex. And Shrikes. And flying Rippers. And Tyranid Primes.

That's just out of the codex I'm most familiar with.

Tyranid Primes, Parasite of Mortrex, Doom of Malan'tai Ymgarl Genestealers, Mycetic Spores, Tyranid Shrikes, Flying Ripper Swarms and Harpies. I'm at work so I don't have the codex handy. Did I miss anything, rigeld?

I am using this model for The Sanguinor, because I like the look of him.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440191a&prodId=prod1160025a

He is a Citadel Mini and is allowed by the RAW.

Well to be more accurate, He is a Citadel Mini and the RAW provides no guidance on which Citadel Minis should be used for which units.

I think that guy looks way more badass as Sang than the actual Sang though.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I am using this model for The Sanguinor, because I like the look of him.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440191a&prodId=prod1160025a

He is a Citadel Mini and is allowed by the RAW.

Unless you play WYSIWYG, then that guy is Astorath the Grim, and using him as another valid HQ choice in the same army isn't WYSIWYG. I'd rather see a converted model that doesn't look like Astorath.

Edit: I think clipping the cup out of Sanguinor's Right hand and replacing it with the axe from the Sanguinary Guard that's being 1 handed, and then clip the sword from the left hand and replace with one of the empty hands, also from the Sang Guard set. Should be pretty easy to do and come out looking great.
More importantly, I've got plenty of spare Sang Axes, because I'm giving all more guard all power fists.

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:
Unless you play WYSIWYG, then that guy is Astorath the Grim, and using him as another valid HQ choice in the same army isn't WYSIWYG. I'd rather see a converted model that doesn't look like Astorath.

Rules reference please? WYSIWYG is a player convention and not RAW.

 pretre wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:
Unless you play WYSIWYG, then that guy is Astorath the Grim, and using him as another valid HQ choice in the same army isn't WYSIWYG. I'd rather see a converted model that doesn't look like Astorath.

Rules reference please? WYSIWYG is a player convention and not RAW.

Awesome. So I can use grots as my Land Raider, my Chaos Terminators, and my Cultists. Don't worry, I can tell which is which.

-Matt

Exactly, there are no rules to prevent that. Which model you use and how you assemble, paint, convert, etc are all part of player convention.

Being that they are part of player convention, you will find it difficult to play games when you use grots as land raiders as most people won't dig on it. Astorath as Sanguinor? Many more people will find it acceptable, although some will still protest (many fewer than you would think if you use the internet as a guide).

Or, as I have said before, there are no rules covering this. Either your opponent will play you or not.

It come down to this:

"The Sanguinor

WARGEAR:…Glaive Encarmine."
C:BA pg. 51

"Q: Are Glaive Encarmines treated as ‘unusual power weapons’ (and therefore AP 3), or do they follow the rules for power axes/swords as defined by the type of weapon the model is carrying? (p50)
A: Glaive Encarmines follow the rules as described in the Types of Power Weapon section on page 61 of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook, but also have the Master-crafted and Two-handed special rules. They would therefore have the following profiles.
Glaive Encarmine (Sword)
Range S AP Type
- User 3 Melee, Master-crafted, Two-handed.

Glaive Encarmine (Axe)
Range S AP Type
- +1 2 Melee, Master-crafted, Two-handed."
BA FAQ

Now, we don't have precedence for this. We've scene unique characters who have different options you can choose and pay ponts for, but iirc we've never scene a unique character who has an item on his set list of gear that isn't specifically one thing or another. A Glaive Encarmine, as defined by GW, can be either a sword or an axe. The Sangiuonor's list of war gear merely states that he has a Glaive Encarmine. Until and unless the Sanguinor's wargear gets FAQ'd, there is nothing prohibiting one from modeling him with a Glaive Encarmine (axe). Sorry, there just isn't. There are plenty of unit choices that are not sold with every option. The Sanguinor was released well before 6th when axe or sword made no difference. They've had plenty of time to FAQ his wargear list if they wanted to.

In conclusion, we have very specific and cited rules telling us that a Glaive Encarmine is either a sword or an axe. I've not been able to find, either in the brb or on dakka, any rules that would lead me to believe that one cannot give the Sangionor a Glaive Encarmine (axe). Again, this is a somewhat unprecedented conundrum. If anyone can find a rule, a specific official rule with page numbers to match, that sates otherwise, I would very much like to see these rules.

Thanks dakka.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pretre wrote:
Exactly, there are no rules to prevent that. Which model you use and how you assemble, paint, convert, etc are all part of player convention.

Being that they are part of player convention, you will find it difficult to play games when you use grots as land raiders as most people won't dig on it. Astorath as Sanguinor? Many more people will find it acceptable, although some will still protest (many fewer than you would think if you use the internet as a guide).

Or, as I have said before, there are no rules covering this. Either your opponent will play you or not.

Well said.

Yes by raw units that do not have citadel miniatures to represent them can not be used nor can options not straight out of the box. And yes you have to use the sanguinor model as the sanguinor by raw as you have no permission to use anything else.

No, because no such RAW exists. And it cannot exist, otherwise the game breaks.

 FlingitNow wrote:
And yes you have to use the sanguinor model as the sanguinor by raw as you have no permission to use anything else.

There is no prohibition or even direction as to which Citadel Models should be used to represent which units in the rules. Unless of course you would like to provide a page number for yet another of your unfounded assertions.

Yes you you can have the sanguinor with an axe as long as you have a sanguinor citadel miniature with an axe (remembering conversions and kit bashes are no longer citadel miniatures...

Wrong, conversions made with citadel products are still citadel models(all citadel parts)

So use a GW axe and you are good to go.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yes you you can have the sanguinor with an axe as long as you have a sanguinor citadel miniature with an axe (remembering conversions and kit bashes are no longer citadel miniatures...

I repeat myself:
There is no prohibition or even direction as to which Citadel Models should be used to represent which units in the rules. Unless, of course, you would like to provide a page number for yet another of your unfounded assertions.

Also, there is no prohibition or even direction on conversions and kitbashes in the rules. Unless, of course, you would like to provide a page number for yet another of your unfounded assertions.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
To be REALLY clear here, FlingitNow. You are arguing HYWPI. You have not presented a single RAW argument or page number. We are talking RAW; you are talking HYWPI.

Please refer to the Tenets of YMDC

4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

Please observe the tenets of YMDC and provide a RAW response to our RAW debate or abstain.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yes by raw units that do not have citadel miniatures to represent them can not be used.

That is not correct. It just says "The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as 'models' "P. 2

 FlingitNow wrote:
nor can options not straight out of the box. And yes you have to use the sanguinor model as the sanguinor by raw as you have no permission to use anything else.

That is also incorrect.

There are no rules covering assembly, painting, or converting miniatures.

I have consistently made clear that you are perfectly free to reject any miniature (citadel or not) that an opponent puts in front of you. This is player convention and is often called 'WYSIWYG', 'MFA' or whatever. This is a clear example of HYWPI because none of it exists in the rules.

I have also made clear that there are no rules governing the consistency, creation, assembly, painting, modelling, kitbashing, converting, etc of models for use with Warhammer 40k with the exception that they must be 'Citadel Miniatures' and 'Placed on an appropriate base'. This is the Rules as Written.

If you dispute my interpretation of the Rules as Written, please provide page references with your dispute.

It tells us to use citadel miniatures. The sanguinor tells us he's a sanguinor. So i have permission to use the sanguinor as the sanguinor. Now show me permission you have to use something else. If you can't you are conceding the point.

Note how the rules don't tell me to not take off all your models as casualties in turn 1. It doesn't tell me not to smash up your models with a hammer either. Does that mean i can do those things? No because it is a permissive rule set.

 FlingitNow wrote:
The sanguinor tells us he's a sanguinor. So i have permission to use the sanguinor as the sanguinor.

Citation needed.

Since you missed it the first time:

To be REALLY clear here, FlingitNow. You are arguing HYWPI. You have not presented a single RAW argument or page number. We are talking RAW; you are talking HYWPI.

Please refer to the Tenets of YMDC

4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

Please observe the tenets of YMDC and provide a RAW response to our RAW debate or abstain.

Citadel miniature that is not assembled the way it was designed to be by citadel is no longer a citadel miniature.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Citadel miniature that is not assembled the way it was designed to be by citadel is no longer a citadel miniature.

It is a citadel mini just a poorly assembled one.

Here is the sum total of rules regarding miniatures for 40k:

The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer
40,000 are referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow. Models
represent a huge variety of troops, from noble Space Marines
and brutal Orks to Warp-spawned Daemons. To reflect all their
differences, each model has its own characteristics profile.

Models and Base Sizes
The rules in this book assume that models are mounted on the base
they are supplied with. Sometimes, a player may have models in
his collection on unusually modelled bases. Some models aren't
supplied with a base at all. In these cases (which are, in all fairness,
relatively few and far between), you should always feel free to
mount the model on a base of appropriate size if you wish, using
models of a similar type as guidance.

Which part of that says which models you use, whether you can paint, assemble, convert, modify, model or kitbash? Which part says you cannot use citadel parts to make a new miniature? Etc, so on.

Perhaps you are having a glitch in your viewer interface.

 pretre wrote:
Since you missed it the first time:

To be REALLY clear here, FlingitNow. You are arguing HYWPI. You have not presented a single RAW argument or page number. We are talking RAW; you are talking HYWPI.

Please refer to the Tenets of YMDC

4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

Please observe the tenets of YMDC and provide a RAW response to our RAW debate or abstain.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Citadel miniature that is not assembled the way it was designed to be by citadel is no longer a citadel miniature.

Rules quote please. Tenet 4.

Thank you for conceding the point that raw is that sanguinor can't have an axe until citadel release a model of him with one.

You like to play it different to the raw and that is fine. But unless you can provide rules that allow you to use something other than the citadel miniature for the sanguinor you must use that model.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Thank you for conceding the point that raw is that sanguinor can't have an axe until citadel release a model of him with one.

You like to play it different to the raw and that is fine. But unless you can provide rules that allow you to use something other than the citadel miniature for the sanguinor you must use that model.

Are you reading a different thread than the rest of us?

We have provided specific rules quotes and you have just provide baseless assumption around how you would play it. Sorry, dude. You're done.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yes by raw units that do not have citadel miniatures to represent them can not be used nor can options not straight out of the box. And yes you have to use the sanguinor model as the sanguinor by raw as you have no permission to use anything else.

Citation please.

Just in case you don't understand, by citation I mean a quote and page number that that quote comes from. RAW stands for 'Read as Written'. If you're going to claim something as RAW the please share with everyone where it is written.

Nothing says which Citadel miniature you have to use, so you could use a Land Raider to represent The Sanguinor RAW.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Nothing says which Citadel miniature you have to use, so you could use a Land Raider to represent The Sanguinor RAW.

That could cause some issues haha. Having to get into BTB to assault, etc

Yep, luckily player convention easily covers that one.

I really do not see why this is still going on. pretre's arguement is really the only one that has any basis to it.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this thread, there were times I was laughing in disbelief.

The rules allow The Sanguinor to have either a Power Sword or a Power Axe to represent his Glaive Encarmine.

Start, middle and end of discussion right there. All those arguing otherwise, I pity you.

 wildboar wrote:
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this thread, there were times I was laughing in disbelief.

The rules allow The Sanguinor to have either a Power Sword or a Power Axe to represent his Glaive Encarmine.

Start, middle and end of discussion right there. All those arguing otherwise, I pity you.

Focus on what the rules say?!? Okay, I could get behind that. However, it's a Glaive Encarmine (Sword) or a Glaive Encarmine (Axe), not a power sword or a power axe. Just nitpicking.

The FAQ states that it follows the rules for Power Weapons (Sword or Axe).

nah, this thread isn't worth it.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Thank you for conceding the point that raw is that sanguinor can't have an axe until citadel release a model of him with one.

You like to play it different to the raw and that is fine. But unless you can provide rules that allow you to use something other than the citadel miniature for the sanguinor you must use that model.

GW makes glaive encarmines that are axes and swords.
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440192a&prodId=prod680007a
(Bottom left and Bottom right are clearly axes, other three are clearly swords).

BA FAQ says that a glaive encarmine can be either an axe or a sword. They don't tell us how to determine which, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say you determine it just like a normal power weapon, but looking at it.

Sanguinor has a non-defined glaive encarmine.

Are you going to say these are illegal on models?
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440339a&prodId=prod1460229a
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440335a&prodId=prod1710004a
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440335a&prodId=prod1710006a
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440277a&prodId=prod1710018a
Clearly GW allows conversions, as they sell conversion kits.

So I'll allow the actual sanguinor model with an actual glaive axe, just to laugh at those people when it gets faq'ed as a glaive (sword).

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:
BA FAQ says that a glaive encarmine can be either an axe or a sword. They don't tell us how to determine which, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say you determine it just like a normal power weapon, but looking at it.
Sanguinor has a non-defined glaive encarmine.

So I'll allow the actual sanguinor model with an actual glaive axe, just to laugh at those people when it gets faq'ed as a glaive (sword).

-Matt

Umm those are contradictory.

It may get FaQed to be just a sword, it may be FaQed to be any kind (Axe or Sword), or it may not be FaQed, until then play it how you want, since The Sanguinor has a non-defined glaive encarmine.

Axe or sword it is. Personally I'd rather have the sword on my Sanguinor - few of my opponents have any monsters that would both require an axe and leave my Sanguinor in any shape to hit them once I1 arrives. Not that I have a Sanguinot model either, but that's beside the point. ;-)

And another OT point: Ignore is a wonderful feature. I've found the few instances where I've used it to be really good for my enjoyment of the site.

Well, the Sanguinor is equipped quite nicely to be able to survive to strike at I1. 2+ armor and 3+ invuln will do that.

 DeathReaper wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:
BA FAQ says that a glaive encarmine can be either an axe or a sword. They don't tell us how to determine which, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say you determine it just like a normal power weapon, but looking at it.
Sanguinor has a non-defined glaive encarmine.

So I'll allow the actual sanguinor model with an actual glaive axe, just to laugh at those people when it gets faq'ed as a glaive (sword).

-Matt

Umm those are contradictory.

It may get FaQed to be just a sword, it may be FaQed to be any kind (Axe or Sword), or it may not be FaQed, until then play it how you want, since The Sanguinor has a non-defined glaive encarmine.

Yes, it is contradictory. It is because I don't agree that RAW and RAI are the in the same vein on this instance. So I'll let other people play it as RAW with a converted glaive (axe), and then mock them when(/if) Sanguinor gets a proper FAQ making his weapon match the one in his left hand.

-Matt

I posted the rules previously that prove you can use the sanguinor model as the sanguinor. If you want to use a different model by raw then you have to prove you can. Still waiting for anyone to address this very basic point.

Nah you're off the base here. The rules say you must use citadel miniatures, they do not say use a sanguinor as a sanguinor.

I think it's bad form and trying to crowbar an advantage with the sanguinor but the rules don't limit the model used to the named model from the GW range, that is convention.

No it says you must use citadel miniatures. There is a citadel miniature for the sanguinor guess what you must use. Show me where it says you can use a different citadel miniature.

For the record i think the rules are clear here and he can have an axe. But we're not talking about rai we're talking raw. And raw is clear unless you can show you have permission to use a different model.

You are adding in extra into the rules that are not there.

i love how its only pretty much one guy with one or two comments from others fighting this. It's been FAQd already, why are you fighting it? Generally speaking, when the entire forum is against you, that's usually a good sign your wrong.

But more to the topic, If you REALLY think that the sanguinator cannot change his weapon between axe or sword, when his codex says he can, basically because his kit doesn't come with one. (mind you which was released long before the change to power weapons in 6th, back when there was no difference between a PS or PA) Then by your logic any units are now MFA to equip themselves with any upgrade in there codex that does not come in the kit.

would LOVE to go through the naysayers armies and pick out a list of models that are now illegal by their own logic and watch them about face when its THEM being wrongfully restricted. ONCE AGAIN, its been FAQd multiple times in the first few pages...the discussion is over....../thread....

this has gotten as redundant and pointless as a thread still argueing if a MSS can use the Force rule...(spoiler alert: its been FAQd too and *gasp* people stopped arguing over it)

↑agreed↑

Let's talk about something else.

No it says you must use citadel miniatures. There is a citadel miniature for the sanguinor guess what you must use. Show me where it says you can use a different citadel miniature.

so any converted model of any degree is now MFA and illegal? hardly, the majority of players would lose 80% of their armies. I'd personally loose every necron model in my army except my two warrior blobs as ive done severe to minor conversions/adjustments to almost everything. Also, what abotu forgeworld? thats not a "GW" model even if they are slightly affiliated with each other, all FW models are now illegal. And what about models that have a GW written codex entry but no released model (GW wise). Can you just not use that entry and its a waste of ink? A few months ago, i would of had to rip about half my codex out because I couldnt use any of it legally by that logic.


As a side note, do you have a page number in the BRB that tells you specifically that you HAVE to use the GWs models and are unable to convert, make your own as long as they fit the codex entry (wargear and such for WYSIWYG) withotu going crazy with it, like coverting a 3" tall trygon model out of gaunt pieces?

 FlingitNow wrote:
No it says you must use citadel miniatures. There is a citadel miniature for the sanguinor guess what you must use.

You're saying that WYSIWYG is a rule?
Cite the page number please.

You're saying that WYSIWYG is a rule?

I wouldn't call it a rule per say, unless i'm wrong and its there. but with the change to power/force weapons and such WYSIWYG does have an effect. If you modeled the mini with a sword, then he has a sword, unless you tell the opponent otherwise, but generally speaking, I find this bad form unless it's a friendly game; in a tourney setting, I'd have problems with a player trying to switch his weapons around.

Just let it go, guys. FiN is either just trolling us or is some sort of auto responder with a broken shift key.

Sorry, WYSIWYG with respect to anything but power weapons. The Sanguinor model is not a power weapon, so applying the power weapon rule to the entire model is something that has no rules support. Unless I've missed something of course - and FlingitNow seems to imply that I have missed something. So I've asked for a page citation.

FlingitNow wrote:I posted the rules previously that prove you can use the sanguinor model as the sanguinor. If you want to use a different model by raw then you have to prove you can. Still waiting for anyone to address this very basic point.

FlingitNow wrote:No it says you must use citadel miniatures. There is a citadel miniature for the sanguinor guess what you must use. Show me where it says you can use a different citadel miniature.

For the record i think the rules are clear here and he can have an axe. But we're not talking about rai we're talking raw. And raw is clear unless you can show you have permission to use a different model.

You still have yet to cite a single rule with which you've 'proven' anything. NOWHERE does it say you have to use the model GW sells with the name Sangiunor. I myself have an awesome looking, imho, kitbash Sanguinor with a death company torso and legs, a sanguinary guard head, grey knight arms and sword, and a pair of wings from the dark eldar scourge kit. Is this model illegal? I hope not, 'cause I'm going to continue to use this kick@$$ model as the Sanguinor and accept the complements I get pertaining to its coolness. I may even magnetize its arm to be able to switch out his glaive encarmine (sword) with a sanguinary guard glaive encarmine (axe) just to see if I like that option better.

I'd magnetise it anyway, just swap it so you can have astorath when you need an axe man to kill characters. The whole re-roll invul saves thing as opposed to the sanguinor's just hack apart thing.

*waves hand* I'm in the school of thought that the sanguinor cannot change the weapon he has, but the guard can. I guess I don't matter, that or someone can't read that there's more than one person saying something like that.

overlordweasel wrote:

But more to the topic, If you REALLY think that the sanguinator cannot change his weapon between axe or sword, when his codex says he can

And.... the codex never says he can change his weapon. It never gives him an option. The only way to change it is to model it for an advantage, which is something you can do, but a TO may disallow it.

 juraigamer wrote:
*waves hand* I'm in the school of thought that the sanguinor cannot change the weapon he has, but the guard can. I guess I don't matter, that or someone can't read that there's more than one person saying something like that.

overlordweasel wrote:

But more to the topic, If you REALLY think that the sanguinator cannot change his weapon between axe or sword, when his codex says he can

And.... the codex never says he can change his weapon. It never gives him an option. The only way to change it is to model it for an advantage, which is something you can do, but a TO may disallow it.

The FAQ gives the option by giving two definitions for the weapon.

 juraigamer wrote:

And.... the codex never says he can change his weapon. It never gives him an option. The only way to change it is to model it for an advantage, which is something you can do, but a TO may disallow it.

The codex does not say he can change his weapon, but the FaQ defines a Glaive Encarmine as a Sword or an Axe. So the underlined is not true.

The Sanguinor has a Glaive Encarmine as noted on P.51 and 82 of the Blood Angels Codex..

A Glaive Encarmine, as noted by the FaQ, is either a sword or an axe. The FaQ tells us the Glaive Encarmine can be a sword or an axe.

So the Sanguinor has a Glaive Encarmine (Which is a Axe or a Sword as noted in the FaQ).

rigeld2 wrote:

 juraigamer wrote:
*waves hand* I'm in the school of thought that the sanguinor cannot change the weapon he has, but the guard can. I guess I don't matter, that or someone can't read that there's more than one person saying something like that.

overlordweasel wrote:

But more to the topic, If you REALLY think that the sanguinator cannot change his weapon between axe or sword, when his codex says he can

And.... the codex never says he can change his weapon. It never gives him an option. The only way to change it is to model it for an advantage, which is something you can do, but a TO may disallow it.

The FAQ gives the option by giving two definitions for the weapon.

Yup. The FAQ allows glaives Encarmine to be either (sword) or ( axe). As the Sangiunor's wargear list simply states 'Glaive Encarmine' it is not specific and can go either way. Sorry, there is nothing concrete saying it must be one or the other, there simply isn't. To be fair, I could be wrong. If I am, please quote and cite the rules that you find so I may be educated.

MFA doesn't mean what most of the people using it thinks it means.

Totally agree that the Codex states he has a Glaive Encarmine. The FAQ states what a Glaive Encarmine can be. The GW model may come with something that looks like a sword, but it doesn't mean that he HAS to have a Glaive Encarmine (sword), as the FAQ provides two different options.

I'm not a BA player and when I did play them, I never used the model.

I'd be happy with BA players taking an axe over a sword, sure... Lose that I6 and become I1, My MSS and warscythes will feth you up first!

Quick question, can anyone point me to a page that defines what a Citadel model actually is?

There isn't one in the rules.

Happyjew wrote:
Quick question, can anyone point me to a page that defines what a Citadel model actually is?

First paragraph of page 2 under "Models & Units".

No, that tells you what a model is defined as. Citadel miniatures is never defined.

 pretre wrote:
No, that tells you what a model is defined as. Citadel miniatures is never defined.

First sentence.
Miniatures are defined as 'models'.
Models are defined as a representation.

Right, but where are Citadel miniatures defined. Also, models are miniatures isn't the same as miniatures are models.

 pretre wrote:
Right, but where are Citadel miniatures defined. Also, models are miniatures isn't the same as miniatures are models.

Irrelevant.
Miniatures are defined as models. Models have a solid definition.
One and the same as far as pure RAW is concerned.

Circular.

Well you did ask for a rulebook definition of a Citadel Miniature. And it is defined as being a model.
So if the rules give permission to equip a model...

Much like if I bought a Ford. It's defined as a type of car.
The Law gives me permission to change the colour of my car.
Therefore I can have my Ford re-sprayed.

The problem is twofold: the rules say all 40k models are citadel miniatures. The rules do not say all citadel miniatures are 40k models. Example: grave guard.

Secondly, it isn't commutative. All fords are cars is not te same as all cars are fords.

Thirdly (whoops), there is no permission to do anything (paint, modify or assemble) citadel miniatures.

 pretre wrote:
The problem is twofold: the rules say all 40k models are citadel miniatures. The rules do not say all citadel miniatures are 40k models.

You've got that backwards.
It says all Citadel Miniatures are Models. Not all Models are Citadel Miniatures.
So you're given permission to equip your models (and therefore equip Citadel Miniatures). True painting isn't covered. Not in a rules sense at least.

The rules also give permission to change the equipment on a model, so you have permission to change the equipment of a Citadel Miniature. There you go! Conversions are RAW.

Where is permission to equip, assemble or modify your models?

I don't have pg 2 in front of me for the rest.

 pretre wrote:
Where is permission to equip, assemble or modify your models?

I don't have pg 2 in front of me for the rest.

Permission to equip your models? You should be able to find that one yourself, surely?
The various Codex will tell you what equipment the model has (call it Wargear if you will). It also gives you permission to change it. The Rulebook tells you how to use it.
Since Miniature = Model and you have permission to modify a models equipment, you now have a RAW permission to modify a miniature.

You are falsely equating wargear purchases with the ability to model wargear. Either way, read back through my responses in the thread. I'm done repeating myself for a couple days.

 pretre wrote:
You are falsely equating wargear purchases with the ability to model wargear.

Can you explain how?
You can change the Wargear on a Model. A Citadel Miniature, as defined in the Rulebook, is a Model.
Lets be honest, this whole argument is ridiculous.

i love how its only pretty much one guy with one or two comments from others fighting this. It's been FAQd already, why are you fighting it? Generally speaking, when the entire forum is against you, that's usually a good sign your wrong.

*waves hand* I'm in the school of thought that the sanguinor cannot change the weapon he has, but the guard can. I guess I don't matter, that or someone can't read that there's more than one person saying something like that

i didn't exclude you, you just arent the one guy whos been consistently posting multiple times per page like liturgies of blood. Also, it is in the codex that he has an option, albeit in the FAQ, which are changes to the codex FAQ=Codex. It gives the definition of a glaive encarmine. It has two profiles, one being a MC sword or axe. It's there in black and white, RAW. Ergo, not MFA. smh.

 grendel083 wrote:

 pretre wrote:
You are falsely equating wargear purchases with the ability to model wargear.

Can you explain how?
You can change the Wargear on a Model. A Citadel Miniature, as defined in the Rulebook, is a Model.
Lets be honest, this whole argument is ridiculous.

The codices say (with a little variance) that the models have a cost and the wargear section lists what the model is armed with, not what the model can be armed with.
It looks like raw is to buy models to fit the wargear since there are no rules to convert. Fortunately nobody works from this starting point.

haha, every time i check this thread, it gets more and more off topic from the OP. This thread needs to be closed, the Op has his answer already.

^^^^
Yes he does, and that answer is yes, you can give the Sanguinir a Glaive Encarmine (Axe).