DarkStarSabre wrote:

Mr.Church13 wrote:

Vampirate of Sartosa wrote:So did anyone else notice that Waaagh!ing is now pretty much pointless?

Sure did! Anyone else notice how this edition slapped pretty much everything but Imperials and non Mat Ward codices with the good ole whiffle-nerf bat?

I don't know. I suppose I could say that....hmm...wait...no.

Was gonna say Orks got a boost but their army ability is a bit worthless and where some units got boosted others got ignored.
Tyranids got Psyker shenigans....if only any of their Psykers could cast a third of the abilities they have access too!

Chaos got a boost. Sort of. Khornate things got kicked but Nurgle got away all dirty.

All I say is allies - Typhus and Epidemius. Reach the magic number and Typhus becomes a GOD with 2+/5++/3+ FNP, Poison wounds on 2+ at AP2 and S5 with a force weapon. Or if he gets bored he could potentially put out 9 attacks.

Nurgle got away laughing.

Also, Chaos Spawn got kind of buffed? The wording on the FAQs is a bit vague - roll a D6 for each spawn, add them together, that is the total number of attacks the spawn get. .....Each? OH MY.

Shooting got strongly buffed, assaulting in general got made more random and in many cases weaker. This translates into a metagame shifted further towards the already dominant shooting portions of the game. There are more xenos armies forced into a purely melee role (Orks, tyranids) than imperial armies (None) so it appears that the edition is buffing imperial codices. In truth it's just buffing any army that doesn't bother to assault or which recieves assaults better than it makes them. Overwatch hurts armies with small light assault units like dark eldar badly and the reduction in cover and the general nerfing of fleet and flanking with assault forces hurts swarmy armies like nids and orks which relied on such tactics.

Guns and flying things are king in sixth.

azazel the cat wrote:I've never seen what generally happens when an edition updates before, so I've got a question:

I don't see any generalized FAQ for the core rulebook. Does this means that the old 5th Ed. core FAQ is now null & void? (I would assume so).

If that is the case, then are there any rules that prevent using abilities that require LOS which are not psychic shooting attacks while embarked in a vehicle?

Because if not, then Anrakyr the Traveller just became awesome again if he's able to use Mind in the Machine while embarked on a CCBarge, now that the previous FAQ is gone.



Can anyone clarify?



EDIT: Lukas the Trickster + challenges = funny

Personally, I'd love for anrakyr to have his MITM on the move back, but I'm a little biased.
Best challenge model = Lone Wolf, Lukas, Crowe... win or lose, you still win.

azazel the cat wrote:I've never seen what generally happens when an edition updates before, so I've got a question:

I don't see any generalized FAQ for the core rulebook. Does this means that the old 5th Ed. core FAQ is now null & void? (I would assume so).

If that is the case, then are there any rules that prevent using abilities that require LOS which are not psychic shooting attacks while embarked in a vehicle?

Because if not, then Anrakyr the Traveller just became awesome again if he's able to use Mind in the Machine while embarked on a CCBarge, now that the previous FAQ is gone.



Can anyone clarify?



EDIT: Lukas the Trickster + challenges = funny

I second this clarification, from what I have read, I think he can now use his ability.

Yes, Anrakry is good again. It's an open topped transport and the book specifically states that open topped transports do not have specific fire points---instead all passengers in an open topped transport can fire, measuring range and line of sight from any point on the hull.

After reading the brb rules related sections and such, probably the biggest game changer that I noticed is that you cannot charge out of a vehicle if it does not have the assault rule when you disembarked that turn(read here units in rhinos, razorbacks, etc.)...just one item that I think had not been mentioned yet...Otherwise it does not seem to me that any dex. got it any worse/better than the others. It is going to require that players approach list building, deployment, and game tactics with a new rules set in mind. (fill in this space with rant about crybabies and naysayers)

Looking forward to seeing lotsa you gents at the NOVA open...safe travels

Anrakyr became even better as even if your enemy aircraft moved flat-out, you may still shoot with one of its weapon at normal BS.

Because if not, then Anrakyr the Traveller just became awesome again if he's able to use Mind in the Machine while embarked on a CCBarge, now that the previous FAQ is gone.

I can't see how the FAQ being gone changes anything at all. The rules that I've read state that you can draw line of sight from the vehicle for shooting attacks and psychic shooting attacks. You can't draw line of sight for other psychic powers for example, or special abilities like Mind in the Machine.

instead all passengers in an open topped transport can fire, measuring range and line of sight from any point on the hull.

Exactly. The passengers can fire. That means they can shoot. The text reads under the header 'passengers shooting from open-topped transports'. Unfortunately like I said special abilities like Mind in the Machine aren't shooting attacks or in fact attacks of any kind.

Drunkspleen wrote:

skarsol wrote:

Fayric wrote:Fleet is a huge improvement for them, if you like footdar.

Why do people keep saying this?

That math was based on 2d6 with a flat re-roll of the full roll, It does NOT take into account Fleet's ability to re-roll an individual dice within the 2d6.

Actually, I made that chart based on rerolling *one* die, which was the only rumor I had heard at the time. It actually would get more complex to figuring out 2 dice, including figuring out at what distance and existing dice rolls you *should* attempt rerolling both dice for.

As an example, needing 6" for assault alone if you get 4" + 1" you clearly reroll the 1". But if you get 3" + 2" do you reroll just the 2" or both? A reroll of the 2" gives you a 66% chance of reaching the target, of both gives you a 72% chance - now figure that math out for every combination of initial roll + distance before deciding rerolls.

(Note: I haven't finished catching up on the thread yet, but wanted to clear up that interpretation).

Baronyu wrote:You don't get an "improved chance to roll higher" when you get a reroll, you get "another chance to roll higher", the dice doesn't say "oh, hey, I rolled a 3 last time, I must roll a 4+ to please my master!"

At least in my case, they normally say "What!!! you want me to reroll? How you dare!!! I will roll 1 or 2..."

But that is the case, lets say the only moment when re-rolling a dice to charge is 100% good is when you got 1 on the first roll... At least you can measure exactly what distance you need, and only re-roll if needed (them, if you dont get high enough, it will not make any diference anyway).

One question: overwatch shoots happens even if the charge fail? And charging units keeps standing in place when charge fail? The awser is probably yeas to booth, but i really think that this time they would make it diferent...

Lets say i need a 7 to reach my enemy and only got 6, do my charging unit still move 6 toward the enemy? In 5th it made sense for charging units not moving (they knew they could not get there, so they just dont move), but in 6th, you roll because your unit will run an aleatory value, wich means that if they dont reach the enemy, they have tried to do it. Could even be more balanced with this overwatch snapfire (that in case of characters shooting, will always hit the most usefull model in the squad).

This edition in making me angry... If my group was not so "conservative", i would throw that ruleset away, and play that leaked rules from january...

Therion wrote:

Because if not, then Anrakyr the Traveller just became awesome again if he's able to use Mind in the Machine while embarked on a CCBarge, now that the previous FAQ is gone.

I can't see how the FAQ being gone changes anything at all. The rules that I've read state that you can draw line of sight from the vehicle for shooting attacks and psychic shooting attacks. You can't draw line of sight for other psychic powers for example, or special abilities like Mind in the Machine.

instead all passengers in an open topped transport can fire, measuring range and line of sight from any point on the hull.

Exactly. The passengers can fire. That means they can shoot. The text reads under the header 'passengers shooting from open-topped transports'. Unfortunately like I said special abilities like Mind in the Machine aren't shooting attacks or in fact attacks of any kind.

Is there a section in the new book that addresses non-psychic special abilities that require LOS? I'm sincerely asking as I've missed it if there was.



If not, given the material we currently have;

Mind in the Machine triggers at the shooting phase
It requires LOS
It requires a 3+
CCB is an open topped transport that its passengers can draw LOS from any part of the hull

My impression that would be that yes, he can use Mind in the Machine from the CCB.

The Dwarf Wolf wrote:
One question: overwatch shoots happens even if the charge fail? And charging units keeps standing in place when charge fail? The awser is probably yeas to booth, but i really think that this time they would make it diferent...

Lets say i need a 7 to reach my enemy and only got 6, do my charging unit still move 6 toward the enemy? In 5th it made sense for charging units not moving (they knew they could not get there, so they just dont move), but in 6th, you roll because your unit will run an aleatory value, wich means that if they dont reach the enemy, they have tried to do it. Could even be more balanced with this overwatch snapfire (that in case of characters shooting, will always hit the most usefull model in the squad).
.

you do overwatch.

You roll the dice.

If you can't make it you stand still. You never actually move if you won't atually get in contact.

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Therion wrote:

Because if not, then Anrakyr the Traveller just became awesome again if he's able to use Mind in the Machine while embarked on a CCBarge, now that the previous FAQ is gone.

I can't see how the FAQ being gone changes anything at all. The rules that I've read state that you can draw line of sight from the vehicle for shooting attacks and psychic shooting attacks. You can't draw line of sight for other psychic powers for example, or special abilities like Mind in the Machine.

instead all passengers in an open topped transport can fire, measuring range and line of sight from any point on the hull.

Exactly. The passengers can fire. That means they can shoot. The text reads under the header 'passengers shooting from open-topped transports'. Unfortunately like I said special abilities like Mind in the Machine aren't shooting attacks or in fact attacks of any kind.

Is there a section in the new book that addresses non-psychic special abilities that require LOS? I'm sincerely asking as I've missed it if there was.



If not, given the material we currently have;

Mind in the Machine triggers at the shooting phase
It requires LOS
It requires a 3+
CCB is an open topped transport that its passengers can draw LOS from any part of the hull

My impression that would be that yes, he can use Mind in the Machine from the CCB.

unfortunatly there is nothing in the book that allows (that i and other have found so far) the use of ANY special ability from inside, with the notable exception of psykers, this means (unless someone can find it) that FNP auras, kantor and other AOE abilities dont seem to b able to work, as most people may remember the 5th book told us how to measure from the hull for such things... there is no such rule (found so far) in the 6th book

if anyone can find this rule (for NON shooting/psykers) please post up a page number, otherwise its case closed

CCB is an open topped transport that its passengers can draw LOS from any part of the hull

You conveniently forgot to finish that sentence with 'for shooting attacks'. That's what the rules say. Under the header "Passengers shooting from Open-topped Transports" it says: Open-topped Transports do not have specific Fire Points. Instead, all passengers in an Open-topped Transport can fire, measuring range and line of sight from any point on the hull of the vehicle.

And yes, the new rules also ban abilities like Weaken Resolve from being used from inside transports because every psychic ability needs you to declare a target. For you to be able to declare a target you have to be able to see it, and you can only draw line of sight for shooting attacks and psychic shooting attacks from transports.

Therion wrote:

CCB is an open topped transport that its passengers can draw LOS from any part of the hull

You conveniently forgot to finish that sentence with 'for shooting attacks'. That's what the rules say.

And yes, the new rules also ban abilities like Weaken Resolve from being used from inside transports because every psychic ability needs you to declare a target. For you to be able to declare a target you have to be able to see it, and you can only draw line of sight for shooting attacks and psychic shooting attacks from transports.

It's not a psychic ability. It is an effect that requires Los and that is it, which the CCB provides.

If that were the case, you could not assault from the ccb either.

Regardless, if you want to further discuss it you should probably start a YMDC thread.

If that were the case, you could not assault from the ccb either.

What are you talking about now? You disembark from your transport in the movement phase and assaulting happens in a different phase altogether. Why would I want to discuss this subject? This case is closed.

Therion wrote:

If that were the case, you could not assault from the ccb either.

What are you talking about now? You disembark from your transport in the movement phase and assaulting happens in a different phase altogether. This case is closed.

Just a quick reminder, we are discussing a rule for a toy soldier game---and given your flag, I doubt we will ever enjoy a game together. So there is really no need to get uptight about it, this is effectively mental masturbation.

RE: Assault
The CCB is a chariot. Chariots may declare an assault in the assault phase. You can only declare an assault against a unit you can see.

Again though, in interest of the general discussion for others--you should probably move this to YMDC if you feel strongly about it--I think we've belabored this thread enough with it .

AgeOfEgos wrote:The CCB is a chariot. Chariots may declare an assault in the assault phase. You can only declare an assault against a unit you can see.

The vehicle can see just fine and can declare assaults. The passenger can't see anything though. Units embarked on transports don't have line of sight to anything. What they can do though is shoot through fire points, and in the case of open-topped vehicles shoot from any part of the vehicle's hull. Everyone else has already accepted this and moved on but you keep on raging against it. Funnily enough you keep telling me to move this to YMDC, while you're the one who started talking about this subject and still continue to discuss it in the very same thread.

Therion wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:The CCB is a chariot. Chariots may declare an assault in the assault phase. You can only declare an assault against a unit you can see.

The vehicle can see just fine and can declare assaults. The passenger can't see anything though. Units embarked on transports don't have line of sight to anything. What they can do though is shoot through fire points, and in the case of open-topped vehicles shoot from any part of the vehicle's hull. Everyone else has already accepted this and moved on but you keep on raging against it. Funnily enough you keep telling me to move this to YMDC, while you're the one who started talking about this subject and still continue to discuss it in the very same thread.

like i said before, i cant find any reference to how non shooting and aura powers work in a transport, if it is indeed not in the book... then they cannot be used when embarked, short of another FAQ to resolve the issue, but as already stated this should be in YMDC... and it is, its under "kantor etc"

Therion wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:The CCB is a chariot. Chariots may declare an assault in the assault phase. You can only declare an assault against a unit you can see.

The vehicle can see just fine and can declare assaults. The passenger can't see anything though. Units embarked on transports don't have line of sight to anything. What they can do though is shoot through fire points, and in the case of open-topped vehicles shoot from any part of the vehicle's hull. Everyone else has already accepted this and moved on but you keep on raging against it. Funnily enough you keep telling me to move this to YMDC, while you're the one who started talking about this subject and still continue to discuss it in the very same thread.

Fluff says that you can draw LOS: "characters prefer to survey the battlefield from a lofty perch" (p.82, the bolded part). Not 100% rules ofc, but...oh well.

Sigvatr wrote:

Therion wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:The CCB is a chariot. Chariots may declare an assault in the assault phase. You can only declare an assault against a unit you can see.

The vehicle can see just fine and can declare assaults. The passenger can't see anything though. Units embarked on transports don't have line of sight to anything. What they can do though is shoot through fire points, and in the case of open-topped vehicles shoot from any part of the vehicle's hull. Everyone else has already accepted this and moved on but you keep on raging against it. Funnily enough you keep telling me to move this to YMDC, while you're the one who started talking about this subject and still continue to discuss it in the very same thread.

Fluff says that you can draw LOS: "characters prefer to survey the battlefield from a lofty perch" (p.82, the bolded part). Not 100% rules ofc, but...oh well.

hehehe i got it dont worry if no one else does

here is the YMDC link lads

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/458691.page

The Dwarf Wolf wrote:

Baronyu wrote:You don't get an "improved chance to roll higher" when you get a reroll, you get "another chance to roll higher", the dice doesn't say "oh, hey, I rolled a 3 last time, I must roll a 4+ to please my master!"

At least in my case, they normally say "What!!! you want me to reroll? How you dare!!! I will roll 1 or 2..."

But that is the case, lets say the only moment when re-rolling a dice to charge is 100% good is when you got 1 on the first roll... At least you can measure exactly what distance you need, and only re-roll if needed (them, if you dont get high enough, it will not make any diference anyway).

One question: overwatch shoots happens even if the charge fail? And charging units keeps standing in place when charge fail? The awser is probably yeas to booth, but i really think that this time they would make it diferent...

Lets say i need a 7 to reach my enemy and only got 6, do my charging unit still move 6 toward the enemy? In 5th it made sense for charging units not moving (they knew they could not get there, so they just dont move), but in 6th, you roll because your unit will run an aleatory value, wich means that if they dont reach the enemy, they have tried to do it. Could even be more balanced with this overwatch snapfire (that in case of characters shooting, will always hit the most usefull model in the squad).

This edition in making me angry... If my group was not so "conservative", i would throw that ruleset away, and play that leaked rules from january...

A: The rules for Precision Shot specifically state that it can't be used with Snapfire, Blast weapons, or attacks that don't need to roll to hit. Characters can't remove specific models for hitting with overwatch.

B: You declare the assault, resolve overwatch, and then determine necessary charge range. So when you roll for charge, you're not rolling to move, you're trying to beat a number. So you can easily suss which dice you want to reroll with fleet. (If you need a 7 to reach the enemy, and you rolled a 1 and a 5, you can just reroll the 1. If you need a 9 and rolled two 3s, better to reroll both.)

C: Everybody gets a 3" pile in on their initiative step. That essentially means that every attacker except the closest model gets 3" extra charge range. Defenders don't get the 6" engagement move from 4th edition, so flanking assaults will actually get fewer defenders involved who can attack back. Since the pile in doesn't occur until their initiative step, positioning your special melee weapons such as Power Fists behind your normals protects them until they get to attack.

Also, I think Defensive Grenades will be a popular choice for assault troops that can take them. If the charge starts within 8", the unit gets a cover save bonus.

I would like to apologize for the rules debate I apparently started in this thread. I thought it was just a simple question, until people who do not yet have the book began trying to answer it.

I humbly withdraw the question, and will ask it elsewhere.

Jidmah wrote:

Crazyterran wrote:So, if a Sergeant challenges a Nob Squad, which Nob fights?

The ork player picks one. Explicitly covered in the rules.

The joke was missed, I am sad. :(

So is it you get 2 hq, 3 elite, fast, heavy and 6 troop plus an allied detachment. Thus being 3 hq, 4 e, fa, hvy and 8 troops? I ask this because on pg 110 is says for bigger games "this gives you access up to six choices each from elites, fast attacks and heavy support, up to four HQchoices, an additional allied detachment and an additional fortification". Anyone else pick up on this or am i just wrong on this entirely.

I think the Detachments are completely seperate from the extra FoC. It's like in Fantasy, where you can normally only have 3 Special and 2 Rare choices that are identical to each other, but in 'Grand Armies', of over 3000 points, you can have more. In less than 2000 point armies, you have the normal FoC, plus Allies. In 2000 point and up armies, you have doubled FoC, plus Detachments.

so wait you cant use Weaken Resolve from inside a transport (i thought it was a witchfire power, thus giving the deny the witch ability as all maledictions are?)

So in 1999 point games i can field a total of 3 hqs (2 from primary and 1 from an allied detachment). In2000 pts 6 hqs (4 from two primary and 1 additional from the two allied detatchments? Do i have this right?

Not certain about whether the Allies double at 2000 or not, but as far as I understand it, that's the gist of it.

can Invulnerable saves be taken against perils of the warp?

under the heading invulnerable save it says "suffers any wound"

under perils it says "suffers 1 wound with no saves of any kind allowed"

i thought invulnerable always allowed you to make saves against things you normally could not?

confused......

Not even invulnerable saves can be taken against perils.

crazy beanz wrote:So in 1999 point games i can field a total of 3 hqs (2 from primary and 1 from an allied detachment). In2000 pts 6 hqs (4 from two primary and 1 additional from the two allied detatchments? Do i have this right?

Unfortunately yes. (as long as you meet the troop requirements of 2 from each primary and 1 from each allied force). With 6 HQs and 6 Troops, that doesn't leave much room for anything else though in the 2000pts.

thank you sir, for the clarification.

do you know anything about the weaken resolve not being able to be fired from a transport thing someone else stated earlier?

RegulusBlack wrote:thank you sir, for the clarification.

do you know anything about the weaken resolve not being able to be fired from a transport thing someone else stated earlier?

Prior to that strange 5th Ed. FAQ ruling, you always could do it... now that the 5th Ed. FAQ no longer applies, I would assume so, however someone with the actual rulebook should probably explain any rule that states yes/no on the issue, and hopefully even cite a page number in the process.

thx azazel,

seems pretty straightforward to me, used during a shooting attack would seem the intent was that it was a shooting power but, i can see how rules lawyers would say it has to be specific.

pretre wrote:Did they put power blades from warp spiders in the BBB? Right now they aren't PW but give an extra attack and ignore armor saves (unlike banshees who have pw).

I really like this buff for Warp Spiders. They fall inline with Bone Swords and will make me greatly consider bringing them more often. Additionally Swooping Hawks got a lot better as now they can DS in and throw their haywire grenades. Everything else about the Eldar FaQ is alright, I will miss str9 Witchblades though. :(

Good and bad side on my Black Templars. Rage (+2 Attacks) instead of the old PE (rerolls to hit) really increased our strength statistically at least. However we took a hit with Furious Charge, Character Challenges, and Power Weapons. Seems like it will equal out nicely, and the Emperor's Champion got a much needed buff from the +2 attacks.

It seems like my Imperial Guard weathered the storm the best, the Vendetta just got THAT much better. Having the Hydra among all the armies that seem lacking of AA is also really nice. Otherwise they will do pretty good but parking lot got a debuff....blob got a buff.

Hello,

i've just thought of something that may help Tau player for the lack of Target Lock :

with the new rules, any character can split fire, right?
And this FAQ say that Team Leader or Sha'vre unit type is : Jetpack, Character

So Target lock is more limited, but free on the leader.... (Or I've really messed up the book with the rumors... The book is at my FLGS, can't check right now)
=> edit : Thanks Chrysis, I should stop thinking to 40K rulings in the morning before my third coffee...


Too bad I don't really like what is happening to my Eldar (love my CC squads, even if they are quite inefficient right now...), but my Tau seem to get a boost.
Well, at least I have 2 army that get well along on the alliance chart...

P.S. : Sorry for my bad English, but everyone knows that French people can't type English correctly...

You've messed up. Any character can do Precision Hits, where they allocate the wounds from any of their rolls of a 6 to hit (as long as it isn't Blast, Template or a Snap Shot). They can't split fire at all.

Argh, crap thanks for correcting me but between the new rules the rumors and the 5th ed, I may have to stop for a while and really read again the rules carefully.

Well back to the drawing board!

warboss wrote:

crazy beanz wrote:So in 1999 point games i can field a total of 3 hqs (2 from primary and 1 from an allied detachment). In2000 pts 6 hqs (4 from two primary and 1 additional from the two allied detatchments? Do i have this right?

Unfortunately yes. (as long as you meet the troop requirements of 2 from each primary and 1 from each allied force). With 6 HQs and 6 Troops, that doesn't leave much room for anything else though in the 2000pts.

My next 2000 points army will be an "all character" space wolves army... No wording on that was changed, so, each HQ slot in a space wolf army means 2 HQ in the room ^^ (8+1 HQs, 3 troops )

The Dwarf Wolf wrote:

warboss wrote:

crazy beanz wrote:So in 1999 point games i can field a total of 3 hqs (2 from primary and 1 from an allied detachment). In2000 pts 6 hqs (4 from two primary and 1 additional from the two allied detatchments? Do i have this right?

Unfortunately yes. (as long as you meet the troop requirements of 2 from each primary and 1 from each allied force). With 6 HQs and 6 Troops, that doesn't leave much room for anything else though in the 2000pts.

My next 2000 points army will be an "all character" space wolves army... No wording on that was changed, so, each HQ slot in a space wolf army means 2 HQ in the room ^^ (8+1 HQs, 3 troops )

5 troops.

Why do all characters? Just use Wolfguard and precision shot with CMLs firing kraks. BOOM HEADSHOT!

Trazyn just got a huge boost as well, with the CCB as a chariot he can now use his Empathic Obliterator from it in assault!

Not sure this was asked or said, But grey knight power weapons are now unusual(they keep thier rules in their codex) and are ap3. So the Warding staff is not a "staff" type weapon then Common sense would say. Or am i completely wrong and missed something

Arrathon wrote:Not sure this was asked or said, But grey knight power weapons are now unusual(they keep thier rules in their codex) and are ap3. So the Warding staff is not a "staff" type weapon then Common sense would say. Or am i completely wrong and missed something

I agree with you, if GK halberds don't follow general halberd power weapon rules, than neither do GK staves. All those unusual force weapons the GKs have are AP3 unless otherwise stated in their own rules (like their hammer, which is AP2). GK Falchions, Swords, Halbreds and Staves are all AP3, plus whatever special abilities the GK codex gives for each of them. I don't see how to read the rule in the new rulebook any other way.

Correct. Even though Halberds say they are Halberds, and Staves say they are Staves, they are not actually halberds or staves, as the FAQ outlines.

Such is the genius of GW's writing.

Thanks to GW, now I HAVE to re-model my librarian since he is holding a staff. He can't even kill a normal space marine with that staff.

leohart wrote:Thanks to GW, now I HAVE to re-model my librarian since he is holding a staff. He can't even kill a normal space marine with that staff.

I thought staves fell under 'Unusual Force Weapons' and were AP3?

pretre wrote:

leohart wrote:Thanks to GW, now I HAVE to re-model my librarian since he is holding a staff. He can't even kill a normal space marine with that staff.

I thought staves fell under 'Unusual Force Weapons' and were AP3?

That's what we were just saying! Scroll up a little.


Also, magnets for ICs is usually a good idea.

Not GK librarian, just a good old Space Marine librarian (e.g. from the finecast librarian in terminator armour kit). He clearly has a staff.

leohart wrote:Not GK librarian, just a good old Space Marine librarian (e.g. from the finecast librarian in terminator armour kit). He clearly has a staff.

GW has sold librarian models with axes as well.

leohart wrote:Not GK librarian, just a good old Space Marine librarian (e.g. from the finecast librarian in terminator armour kit). He clearly has a staff.

That's your own fault for using Finecast. Sorry dude.

Joe Mama wrote:

leohart wrote:Not GK librarian, just a good old Space Marine librarian (e.g. from the finecast librarian in terminator armour kit). He clearly has a staff.

That's your own fault for using Finecast. Sorry dude.

Wait, why is it his fault?

Fafnir wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:

leohart wrote:Not GK librarian, just a good old Space Marine librarian (e.g. from the finecast librarian in terminator armour kit). He clearly has a staff.

That's your own fault for using Finecast. Sorry dude.

Wait, why is it his fault?

I think you'll find your experience on Dakka is better if you use the Ignore button in certain circumstances.

Fafnir wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:

leohart wrote:Not GK librarian, just a good old Space Marine librarian (e.g. from the finecast librarian in terminator armour kit). He clearly has a staff.

That's your own fault for using Finecast. Sorry dude.

Wait, why is it his fault?

Relax. It was a joke.

jmurph wrote:Why do all characters? Just use Wolfguard and precision shot with CMLs firing kraks. BOOM HEADSHOT!

For the fun of having 8 HQs in the table (and practicaly nothing else).

And I say: sher-up WYGIWYS, my Rune Priest is modeled with a blade, but it specify in his profile as a force weapon... I dont know what is a force weapons now, but i suspect it S:-r, AP3.

My Wolf Guard Battle Leader in other way, Carry a Power Weapon who looks like an axe... I dont care what you say, that thing dont strike at Initiative 1!!!

What is freaking me is the Crozius Arcanun, i really like my wolf priest, someone said now crozius act as a maul, and sudenly it dont ignore marine armors anymore... :(

The Dwarf Wolf wrote:And I say: sher-up WYGIWYS, my Rune Priest is modeled with a blade, but it specify in his profile as a force weapon... I dont know what is a force weapons now, but i suspect it S:-r, AP3.

That would be a force sword. So, yes.

My Wolf Guard Battle Leader in other way, Carry a Power Weapon who looks like an axe... I dont care what you say, that thing dont strike at Initiative 1!!!

Unfortunately, yes it does. If you purchased a power weapon or frost weapon from the SW codex, then it will be a power axe or frost axe. Might I suggest switching to a sword?

What is freaking me is the Crozius Arcanun, i really like my wolf priest, someone said now crozius act as a maul, and sudenly it dont ignore marine armors anymore... :(

Technically, only the C:SM Crozius is a maul right now. C:SW is listed as 'Crozius Arcanum (Power Weapon)' vs C:SM 'Crozius Arcanum' and didn't get a FAQ ruling. That will probably change though.

pretre wrote:Unfortunately, yes it does. If you purchased a power weapon or frost weapon from the SW codex, then it will be a power axe or frost axe. Might I suggest switching to a sword?

Unless he is going to tournaments, making this clear to his opponent should be good enough.

Farseer Mael Dannan wrote:

pretre wrote:Unfortunately, yes it does. If you purchased a power weapon or frost weapon from the SW codex, then it will be a power axe or frost axe. Might I suggest switching to a sword?

Unless he is going to tournaments, making this clear to his opponent should be good enough.

The key here is also consistency. Every frost sword in his army should be as easily identifiable and consistent with every other frost sword in the army. The same goes for every other weapon. This is where the problems start.

Joe Mama wrote:

Arrathon wrote:Not sure this was asked or said, But grey knight power weapons are now unusual(they keep thier rules in their codex) and are ap3. So the Warding staff is not a "staff" type weapon then Common sense would say. Or am i completely wrong and missed something

I agree with you, if GK halberds don't follow general halberd power weapon rules, than neither do GK staves. All those unusual force weapons the GKs have are AP3 unless otherwise stated in their own rules (like their hammer, which is AP2). GK Falchions, Swords, Halbreds and Staves are all AP3, plus whatever special abilities the GK codex gives for each of them. I don't see how to read the rule in the new rulebook any other way.

The BRB pg60 states that Halberds are axes and as such would be AP2 and +1S & a Warding Staff would count as a blunt weapon AP4 and +2S or do I have this wrong ?

Farseer Mael Dannan wrote:

pretre wrote:Unfortunately, yes it does. If you purchased a power weapon or frost weapon from the SW codex, then it will be a power axe or frost axe. Might I suggest switching to a sword?

Unless he is going to tournaments, making this clear to his opponent should be good enough.

But then we are proxying. If you're cool with proxying in friendly games, that's fine. I'm not a fan.

edit: in our group, we generally allow proxies for testing, but not for long term stuff.

Chimaera wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:I agree with you, if GK halberds don't follow general halberd power weapon rules, than neither do GK staves. All those unusual force weapons the GKs have are AP3 unless otherwise stated in their own rules (like their hammer, which is AP2). GK Falchions, Swords, Halbreds and Staves are all AP3, plus whatever special abilities the GK codex gives for each of them. I don't see how to read the rule in the new rulebook any other way.

The BRB pg60 states that Halberds are axes and as such would be AP2 and +1S & a Warding Staff would count as a blunt weapon AP4 and +2S or do I have this wrong ?

You have this wrong because that part describes regular power weapons, meaning regular power swords, regular power axes, regular power staves, regular halberds. The paragraph on unusual force weapons is what applies to GK weapons, because they are all unusual force weapons (nemesis). Unusual force weapons are AP3, unless stated otherwise. And the only one which states otherwise is the hammer, which acts like a hammer.

Joe Mama wrote:

Chimaera wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:I agree with you, if GK halberds don't follow general halberd power weapon rules, than neither do GK staves. All those unusual force weapons the GKs have are AP3 unless otherwise stated in their own rules (like their hammer, which is AP2). GK Falchions, Swords, Halbreds and Staves are all AP3, plus whatever special abilities the GK codex gives for each of them. I don't see how to read the rule in the new rulebook any other way.

The BRB pg60 states that Halberds are axes and as such would be AP2 and +1S & a Warding Staff would count as a blunt weapon AP4 and +2S or do I have this wrong ?

You have this wrong because that part describes regular power weapons, meaning regular power swords, regular power axes, regular power staves, regular halberds. The paragraph on unusual force weapons is what applies to GK weapons, because they are all unusual force weapons (nemesis). Unusual force weapons are AP3, unless stated otherwise. And the only one which states otherwise is the hammer, which acts like a hammer.

I see where you are coming from on the unusual force weapons. GK's just got a CC weaponary downgrade of sorts i.e. not as effective against armour with a 2+ save. Not a bad thing

If I have this right it means Draigo's Titansword is also AP3.

pretre wrote:

Farseer Mael Dannan wrote:

pretre wrote:Unfortunately, yes it does. If you purchased a power weapon or frost weapon from the SW codex, then it will be a power axe or frost axe. Might I suggest switching to a sword?

Unless he is going to tournaments, making this clear to his opponent should be good enough.

But then we are proxying. If you're cool with proxying in friendly games, that's fine. I'm not a fan.

edit: in our group, we generally allow proxies for testing, but not for long term stuff.

See, that is the problem with such limited classification of weapons -> it left less space for your imagination.

Anyway, i will be clearing to my oponente how my WGBL is equiped with a "frost blade" rulewise, axes still have blades ^^

About the crozius: yeah, i see how things can become tricky here. But Space Wolves codex have no description of what is a crozius, it just tell you, in the army list, that a wolf priest gets a crozius (its in the wargear, and that is the only reference to it in the rules). In Codex Marines the crozius have his own description, wich tell it work like a power weapon. Now, in the new rulebook the crozius is described with diferent rules than in the codex, normally the codex would surpass the rulebook, but the FAQ specifically tell you to use another description. So the reference to a crozius arcanum in the space wolves codex would just point to the BRB. If it was not that "power weapon" in parentesis, fallowing the ONLY reference to crozius arcanun in the Space Wolves Codex. What i am suposed to do about it? In 5th it was there just to point how the crozius worked, in 6th i should ignore the parentesis thing? Or should i consider it a codex rule?

As a fluff fallower, i will use the BRB reference until that is FAQed, but now i understand all the (un)love people have for GW FAQs.

PS: our group allow any type of proxies, it just need to be clear what is what. For an example, i plan to make a "ver-mynn" army after i finish my Space Wolves, they will probably count as IG...

The Dwarf Wolf wrote:PS: our group allow any type of proxies, it just need to be clear what is what. For an example, i plan to make a "ver-mynn" army after i finish my Space Wolves, they will probably count as IG...

Counts as is different than proxy.

Counts as is consistent and generally is something not represented by the rules representing something in the rules. I.e. Skaven in space counting as IG. All of the weapons would be consistent and match expectations for your opponent. Counts-as is WYSIWYG. ("These skaven with heavy armor are carapace vets. Note the melta guns. These skaven with light armor are veterans. Note the plasmaguns, meltabombs and demo charge. These especially impressive looking skaven with a missile launcher and banner, along with my converted Snikt are my CCS. All of my guns are WYSIWYG, but feel free to ask if you have questions.")

Proxy is not consistent and sometimes has things already represented by the rules representing something else. I.e. This lascannon is really a plasma cannon. This coke can is a drop pod. Bad counts-as often falls into proxy. Proxy is, by definition, not WYSIWYG. ("these skaven with lasguns are storm troopers. These skaven with lasguns that look the same are veterans. these skaven with lasguns and a missle launcher are my CCS. Hope you remember all that!")

I love good counts-as. I am not a fan of proxy.

Chimaera wrote:I see where you are coming from on the unusual force weapons. GK's just got a CC weaponary downgrade of sorts i.e. not as effective against armour with a 2+ save. Not a bad thing

If I have this right it means Draigo's Titansword is also AP3.

Uh oh, I think you are right.

Joe Mama wrote:

Chimaera wrote:I see where you are coming from on the unusual force weapons. GK's just got a CC weaponary downgrade of sorts i.e. not as effective against armour with a 2+ save. Not a bad thing

If I have this right it means Draigo's Titansword is also AP3.

Uh oh, I think you are right.

I am getting in to this now. So the follwing get changed but keep their special associated rules (these are not quoted below).

Spear of Vulkan = AP2 power axe +1S & I1.

Ravens Talons = AP3 LC's.

Moonfang = AP3 power sword.

Cassius Crozius = AP4 power maul +2S

Rod of Tigurius = AP3 force weapon.

Talassarian Tempest Blade = AP3 power sword

Anymore out there?

Chimaera wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:

Chimaera wrote:I see where you are coming from on the unusual force weapons. GK's just got a CC weaponary downgrade of sorts i.e. not as effective against armour with a 2+ save. Not a bad thing

If I have this right it means Draigo's Titansword is also AP3.

Uh oh, I think you are right.

I am getting in to this now. So the follwing get changed but keep their special associated rules (these are not quoted below).

Spear of Vulkan = AP2 power axe +1S & I1.

Ravens Talons = AP3 LC's.

Moonfang = AP3 power sword.

Cassius Crozius = AP4 power maul +2S

Rod of Tigurius = AP3 force weapon.

Talassarian Tempest Blade = AP3 power sword

Anymore out there?

SPEAR of vulkan would be a power spear i think, so woul follow those rules

You're reading the rules wrong.

Vulkan's Spear, Moonfang, Raven's Talon's, TT Blade are all Unusual Power Weapons. So they keep the rules from C:SM and are AP3/Init.

Cassius doesn't even have a special crozius. He just has a normal one.

Tigurius' rod is just a normal force weapon with MC.

I may be a bit too literal minded, but how are the demon hammers becoming AP 2? As an "unusual force weapon" they're limited to AP3. Can we still treat them as thunderhammers?

P.S. I'm all for them being AP 2, I'm just having issues getting there.

Sarge wrote:I may be a bit too literal minded, but how are the demon hammers becoming AP 2? As an "unusual force weapon" they're limited to AP3. Can we still treat them as thunderhammers?

P.S. I'm all for them being AP 2, I'm just having issues getting there.

Unusual FW are AP3 unless their entry specifies otherwise. The entry for NDH says they act as Thunder Hammers in addition to their special rules. TH are AP2.

lord_blackfang wrote:Is it just me or did nothing gain the Skyfire rule?

Missile Launchers have a new ammo type.

FlaKK missiles R 48" , S7, AP4 Heavy 1, Skyfire

Formosa wrote:

Chimaera wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:

Chimaera wrote:I see where you are coming from on the unusual force weapons. GK's just got a CC weaponary downgrade of sorts i.e. not as effective against armour with a 2+ save. Not a bad thing

If I have this right it means Draigo's Titansword is also AP3.

Uh oh, I think you are right.

I am getting in to this now. So the follwing get changed but keep their special associated rules (these are not quoted below).

Spear of Vulkan = AP2 power axe +1S & I1.

Ravens Talons = AP3 LC's.

Moonfang = AP3 power sword.

Cassius Crozius = AP4 power maul +2S

Rod of Tigurius = AP3 force weapon.

Talassarian Tempest Blade = AP3 power sword

Anymore out there?

SPEAR of vulkan would be a power spear i think, so woul follow those rules

You are correct it would be a Power lance = AP3/4 & S 3/4.

pretre wrote:You're reading the rules wrong.

Vulkan's Spear, Moonfang, Raven's Talon's, TT Blade are all Unusual Power Weapons. So they keep the rules from C:SM and are AP3/Init.

Truth. I think.

pretre wrote:You're reading the rules wrong.

Vulkan's Spear, Moonfang, Raven's Talon's, TT Blade are all Unusual Power Weapons. So they keep the rules from C:SM and are AP3/Init.

Cassius doesn't even have a special crozius. He just has a normal one.

Tigurius' rod is just a normal force weapon with MC.

I got vulkan wrong as per post above but the rest are correct as I did say I missed out there unique rules.

Cassius has a Crozius which to my understanding in the 6th is a Power Maul.

Tigurius says Rod and to me that means force staff so going by the flavour text in the rules I guess it's AP4 then.. I thought MC put it in the unusual bracket but thinking on I don't think it is, it's a standard Force Stave with MC?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grugknuckle wrote:

lord_blackfang wrote:Is it just me or did nothing gain the Skyfire rule?

Missile Launchers have a new ammo type.

FlaKK missiles R 48" , S7, AP4 Heavy 1, Skyfire

Except we don't know which missile launchers will get this upgrade has it hasn't been FAQ'd yet?

Chimaera wrote:You are correct it would be a Power lance = AP3/4 & S 3/4.

You are incorrect. It is an unusual power weapon, so S+2, AP3 and Init.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chimaera wrote:[Tigurius says Rod and to me that means force staff so going by the flavour text in the rules I guess it's AP4 then.. I thought MC put it in the unusual bracket but thinking on I don't think it is, it's a standard Force Stave with MC?

Yes, MC is a standard property in the rulebook.

For my Tau: WOO! Farsight's Dawn Blade is still "Ignore Armour saves" and 2d6+5 penetration against Vehicles at his Initiative of 5. No nerf here for a change.

Then: BOO! My Farsight army is now pathetically weak against lots of tanks thanks to my 1 unit of Broadsides not being allowed to split fire.

At least our vehicle Target Locks still work.

Goddammit GW...

pretre wrote:

Chimaera wrote:You are correct it would be a Power lance = AP3/4 & S 3/4.

You are incorrect. It is an unusual power weapon, so S+2, AP3 and Init.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chimaera wrote:[Tigurius says Rod and to me that means force staff so going by the flavour text in the rules I guess it's AP4 then.. I thought MC put it in the unusual bracket but thinking on I don't think it is, it's a standard Force Stave with MC?

Yes, MC is a standard property in the rulebook.

This is quite good to work through. So we are basically on the same scipt apart from Vulkan. Why we would it get +2 strength as C:SM doesn't say it is a relic blade although I guess it could fall in to unusual as it has a 6 instant death rule? In which case it would be an AP3 unusual power weapon with that instant death rule?

Codex: Space Marines, P93. "The Spear of Vulkan: This is a master-crafted relic blade."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You're thinking of Moonfang.

pretre wrote:Codex: Space Marines, P93. "The Spear of Vulkan: This is a master-crafted relic blade."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You're thinking of Moonfang.

Lol just too much info to absorb. I am on your page now (did have Moonfang stuck in my head). Thanks for that.

Ok.. the FAQ for Bolster Defenses seems to change the effects from just "ruins" to "any cover" as it gives a new example that modifies "area terrain".
Since "area terrain" can cover woods that gives quite a boost to Scouting units.
Also, since the Aegis Defense line is considered "battlefield debris" can this also be bolstered, making it a 3+ save?

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

MDizzle wrote:WOW from what I can tell Tyranids have no weapon that has the skyfire rule, no allies and no hope no hope at all.

They have Flying MC's which can Vector Strike Aerial units, not really needing it when you can smack them like that, kinda like chaos daemons now.

Vector strike is fairly useless against AV12 fliers or 11 for that matter: a harpy's strength is 5.
(it hits side, and no, you can't smash with strike).

Flying mc's don't get skyfire

EDIT: some of this answered already....oh well.

As far as I can tell it rolls as:

Are you Xeno, and not Necrons?

Feth you.

Tau did alright considering most things, stealth suits are finally able to be considered in a serious manner now.

Necrons got some nice stuff, but took a couple of big hits;
1- night fighting is mostly useless now if you read the new rules, and actually look at a table.
2 - many things are now immune to dangerous terrain tests (if you are doing the tremor build).
3 - Monoliths can still mishap

Tau got Good on:
pulse rifles rapid fire
Stealth survivabiliy
Black sun filters

Tau got lame on;
no target lock
acute sense mostly worthless
no aa
shield drones and broadsides and targeting (too complex to explain).
Stealth suits are still crap offensively and overcosted....so, until the burst cannon gets more than an 18" range....



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sidstyler wrote:

junk wrote:and tau, which have been woefully ignored all through fifth, will see a lot more table time thanks to allies and the uber-stealth bump that stealth suits have received.

How do you figure? Why do so many people seem to be under the impression that better stealth suits are all it takes to "save" Tau?

They were crap before, and they're still crap now, because Tau don't need to waste slots for valuable crisis suits on anti-infantry firepower, which is all stealth suits are good at. They're more survivable now, but still useless.

^ This.

I am hoping that I am missing something with the target locks....perhaps a new codex

helgrenze wrote:Ok.. the FAQ for Bolster Defenses seems to change the effects from just "ruins" to "any cover" as it gives a new example that modifies "area terrain".
Since "area terrain" can cover woods that gives quite a boost to Scouting units.
Also, since the Aegis Defense line is considered "battlefield debris" can this also be bolstered, making it a 3+ save?

Unfortunately not. They are referring to the area terrain attached to the Ruin (covered on pages 91 & 98 of the 6th.

imweasel wrote:

Flashman wrote:Just to clarify, under the missile launcher entry in the new rule book, it clearly states that some units have the option to purchase Flakk missiles in their Codex i.e. Flakk missiles do not automatically come with missile launchers. You have to buy them as an upgrade and need the option to do so. This option will no doubt start in appearing in future Codexes, but doesn't exist at present.

I must have missed that part where it said in their codex.

Once again, right after the option to upgrade, it states you chhose what missile to fire and gives the profile you can choose from. The only other weapon I can think of that you can upgrade is the medusa. That upgrade is missing from its profile from the weapons profile in the rule book. The flakk missile isn't. I would say you get to use the flakk missile until it's faq'ed otherwise.

Railgun listing also says both shot and slug.

Did broadsides get an upgrade? They have railguns?
Of course not, don't be silly. If I run into someone who thinks they get skyfire shots on their missiles, I won't even take my minis out of the case....

So learning that Rage is simply +1 more attack on the charge in...BT got a huge melee nerf. I thought it was a simple +2 Attacks all the time before getting the book in hand (like most rumors were reporting). Why even play a BT army when you can play CSM and spam Bezerkers that put out 35% more wounds than our Crusaders? (Did the math with 1000 points worth of Bezerkers vs Crusaders, with Crusaders having Rage, and both getting the run in....84.66 Wounds to 62.5 Wounds (old PE gave us 70.32 Wounds). -__- I will keep playing them for fluff reasons, but UGH.

A Town Called Malus wrote:For my Tau: WOO! Farsight's Dawn Blade is still "Ignore Armour saves" and 2d6+5 penetration against Vehicles at his Initiative of 5. No nerf here for a change.

Then: BOO! My Farsight army is now pathetically weak against lots of tanks thanks to my 1 unit of Broadsides not being allowed to split fire.

At least our vehicle Target Locks still work.

Goddammit GW...

Can't split fire but being STR 10, AP 1 means that you destroy vehicles more reliably (+2 on the penetrating damage chart).

Grugknuckle wrote:

lord_blackfang wrote:Is it just me or did nothing gain the Skyfire rule?

Missile Launchers have a new ammo type.

FlaKK missiles R 48" , S7, AP4 Heavy 1, Skyfire

This horse has been beaten in the thread already;
(short answer: there is a new optional type, but no missiles in any codex have them yet).

For the longer version, go back in the thread...

jms40k wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:For my Tau: WOO! Farsight's Dawn Blade is still "Ignore Armour saves" and 2d6+5 penetration against Vehicles at his Initiative of 5. No nerf here for a change.

Then: BOO! My Farsight army is now pathetically weak against lots of tanks thanks to my 1 unit of Broadsides not being allowed to split fire.

At least our vehicle Target Locks still work.

Goddammit GW...

Can't split fire but being STR 10, AP 1 means that you destroy vehicles more reliably (+2 on the penetrating damage chart).

Um, no. 10/1 weapons destroyed vehicles on a 4+ in 5E anyways using the +1 and the old damage chart. There's no change there.

If you want to try to find a bright spot on the new rules for Broadsides, instead focus on the ability to now move and still fire the Railguns.

Wreckoning wrote:

jms40k wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:For my Tau: WOO! Farsight's Dawn Blade is still "Ignore Armour saves" and 2d6+5 penetration against Vehicles at his Initiative of 5. No nerf here for a change.

Then: BOO! My Farsight army is now pathetically weak against lots of tanks thanks to my 1 unit of Broadsides not being allowed to split fire.

At least our vehicle Target Locks still work.

Goddammit GW...

Can't split fire but being STR 10, AP 1 means that you destroy vehicles more reliably (+2 on the penetrating damage chart).

Um, no. 10/1 weapons destroyed vehicles on a 4+ in 5E anyways using the +1 and the old damage chart. There's no change there.

If you want to try to find a bright spot on the new rules for Broadsides, instead focus on the ability to now move and still fire the Railguns.

We could do that anyway with an upgrade which allows the the unit to choose to move with the Slow and Purposeful USR for that turn. 'Course now that rule doesn't allow them to Overwatch but XV88s shouldn't be anywhere where they could be charged anyway.

Farseer Mael Dannan wrote:So learning that Rage is simply +1 more attack on the charge in...BT got a huge melee nerf. I thought it was a simple +2 Attacks all the time before getting the book in hand (like most rumors were reporting). Why even play a BT army when you can play CSM and spam Bezerkers that put out 35% more wounds than our Crusaders? (Did the math with 1000 points worth of Bezerkers vs Crusaders, with Crusaders having Rage, and both getting the run in....84.66 Wounds to 62.5 Wounds (old PE gave us 70.32 Wounds). -__- I will keep playing them for fluff reasons, but UGH.

This isn't even the worst of it to me. In an army already strapped for points to HAVE to take the EC and another HQ just truly sucks, not to mention that they decided to give us the Drop Pod Assault rules, but couldn't see to fix the transport costs. Tie this in with the fact that I have 2 armies BT and Nids and you can imagine how I felt reading these FAQs. Genestealers now compete for the spot of Most Overpriced Unit: Fleet Nerfed, can't charge out of Outflank or Infiltrate, lots of cover reduced to 5+, Overwatch.....oh yeah, they Rock for 14 points a pop, Hormagaunts too, there aren't many abilities now more useless considering the unit that gets it than Bounding Leap......YES, let me run faster towards those guns and not be able to charge!!

I modeled my Vanilla Marine Libby in Termie armor by cutting off the head of that ugly ass staff and gluing on the sword part from an old Company Champion.

I now have a Librarian with a Force Axe equivalent. >.>

Sounds like a force spear to me.

With the new Eldar Jetbike rules... I assume it works like this...


Move Phase: 12"
Shoot Phase: Flat out 24" or fire.
Assault Phase: 2d6 Move or charge if Flat out was not chosen?)

Doesn't this effectively give you Star Engines (+12 move) for free? I'm assuming you cannot buy Star Engines and move 36" in the move phase for 48" of overall speed.

Eldar Jetbikes don't have the option for Star Engines anyway.

helgrenze wrote:Ok.. the FAQ for Bolster Defenses seems to change the effects from just "ruins" to "any cover" as it gives a new example that modifies "area terrain".
Since "area terrain" can cover woods that gives quite a boost to Scouting units.
Also, since the Aegis Defense line is considered "battlefield debris" can this also be bolstered, making it a 3+ save?

If so, take an aegis line with a quad gun, and put a unit of sniper scouts in there with camo cloaks. Nice little fire base.

MajorWesJanson wrote:

helgrenze wrote:Ok.. the FAQ for Bolster Defenses seems to change the effects from just "ruins" to "any cover" as it gives a new example that modifies "area terrain".
Since "area terrain" can cover woods that gives quite a boost to Scouting units.
Also, since the Aegis Defense line is considered "battlefield debris" can this also be bolstered, making it a 3+ save?

If so, take an aegis line with a quad gun, and put a unit of sniper scouts in there with camo cloaks. Nice little fire base.

The FAQ for Bolster Defences specifically prohibits bolstering Fortifications you've purchased as part of your army list. Now, if that Aegis line was just part of the board's terrain setup, then that's ok. Otherwise, no can do.

automatonsleuth wrote:

MajorWesJanson wrote:

helgrenze wrote:Ok.. the FAQ for Bolster Defenses seems to change the effects from just "ruins" to "any cover" as it gives a new example that modifies "area terrain".
Since "area terrain" can cover woods that gives quite a boost to Scouting units.
Also, since the Aegis Defense line is considered "battlefield debris" can this also be bolstered, making it a 3+ save?

If so, take an aegis line with a quad gun, and put a unit of sniper scouts in there with camo cloaks. Nice little fire base.

The FAQ for Bolster Defences specifically prohibits bolstering Fortifications you've purchased as part of your army list. Now, if that Aegis line was just part of the board's terrain setup, then that's ok. Otherwise, no can do.

Good point.

Hi everyone, I wonder if you can help with some clarity. I have had a look and cant see it.

LOGAN GRIMNAR'S AXE OF MORKAI.

He can attack using it as a frost blade and or power fist. It looks like an axe but it says frost blade, and there are two entries in the wargear fost blade and frost axe. if its a frost axe then both its attack traits go at i1. This doesnt sound right. does it do frost blade ap3 attacks and power fist attacks. OR is it frost axe and power fist attacks????

thanks in advance........ sorry if im just being thick!

Battlesong wrote:

Farseer Mael Dannan wrote:So learning that Rage is simply +1 more attack on the charge in...BT got a huge melee nerf. I thought it was a simple +2 Attacks all the time before getting the book in hand (like most rumors were reporting). Why even play a BT army when you can play CSM and spam Bezerkers that put out 35% more wounds than our Crusaders? (Did the math with 1000 points worth of Bezerkers vs Crusaders, with Crusaders having Rage, and both getting the run in....84.66 Wounds to 62.5 Wounds (old PE gave us 70.32 Wounds). -__- I will keep playing them for fluff reasons, but UGH.

This isn't even the worst of it to me. In an army already strapped for points to HAVE to take the EC and another HQ just truly sucks, not to mention that they decided to give us the Drop Pod Assault rules, but couldn't see to fix the transport costs. Tie this in with the fact that I have 2 armies BT and Nids and you can imagine how I felt reading these FAQs. Genestealers now compete for the spot of Most Overpriced Unit: Fleet Nerfed, can't charge out of Outflank or Infiltrate, lots of cover reduced to 5+, Overwatch.....oh yeah, they Rock for 14 points a pop, Hormagaunts too, there aren't many abilities now more useless considering the unit that gets it than Bounding Leap......YES, let me run faster towards those guns and not be able to charge!!

Until you realise those gaunts are conferring cover saves to the genestealers and Monstrous Creatures behind them.

spitfire6x wrote:Hi everyone, I wonder if you can help with some clarity. I have had a look and cant see it.

LOGAN GRIMNAR'S AXE OF MORKAI.

He can attack using it as a frost blade and or power fist. It looks like an axe but it says frost blade, and there are two entries in the wargear fost blade and frost axe. if its a frost axe then both its attack traits go at i1. This doesnt sound right. does it do frost blade ap3 attacks and power fist attacks. OR is it frost axe and power fist attacks????

thanks in advance........ sorry if im just being thick!

It's a weird one but basically Logan's axe can strike as a frost blade i.e. AP3, +1 S and normal init or as a power fist i.e. AP2, X2 S & init 1.

I am still unsure what is the best load out for SW IC. It seems like Runic Armour just became a whole lot more important as does SS with the new challenge rule. I would imagine sales of plastic TDA kits will also increase. Maybe I will wait out to see if further FAQ updates come before remodelling. I also think there needs to be a weapons costing redone as some of them don't quite make sense. I think if you want a non shooty SW IC it's looking more like TH & SS, then should you go TDA or PA? Lot of things to think about including the load out when on TWC. Belts of Russ may also become more used on non SS Wolf Lords or indeed special characters with invulnerable saves. Runic Amour for Rune Priests & Wolf Priests also now seems like a must have? In away the 6th has mixed things up quite nicely. The only thing I don't like is that SW's fluff wise sit well with axes. The only problem here is they now strike at init 1, which is a shame as I can see my number of axes being fielded just for the look reducing. I'll get over it I guess.

@ Chimaera, thanks buddy. thats what I was thinking but wanted to double check..

skarsol wrote:Eldar Jetbikes don't have the option for Star Engines anyway.

True, but I was actually musing a couple different thoughts and reflected that poorly. Disregard.

As an after thought. I believe GW designed every Codex from the latest Space Wolves one with the 6th in mind. Why do I come to this conclusion? Basically Frost weapons. Why in the SW's codex did they list Frost Blades/Axes as serperate items with the same buff? They could have just named them Frost weapons. The 6th SW's FAQ comes along and explains all or am I giving GW too much credit

Chimaera wrote:As an after thought. I believe GW designed every Codex from the latest Space Wolves one with the 6th in mind. Why do I come to this conclusion? Basically Frost weapons. Why in the SW's codex did they list Frost Blades/Axes as serperate items with the same buff? They could have just named them Frost weapons. The 6th SW's FAQ comes along and explains all or am I giving GW too much credit

I think you are correct.

What I find funny is how Orks have survived pretty much unscathed. They've weathered the last couple of edition changes pretty well, I think, and I bet that even if they don't get an update 'till halfway through 7th(!) Edition, they'll stay at least semi-competetive. It'z dat robust Orkish Fizzioligy.

Anvildude wrote:What I find funny is how Orks have survived pretty much unscathed. They've weathered the last couple of edition changes pretty well, I think, and I bet that even if they don't get an update 'till halfway through 7th(!) Edition, they'll stay at least semi-competetive. It'z dat robust Orkish Fizzioligy.

yes look at all the stuff we have

lootas move and fire (a 6 is almost the same as a five - particularly to an Orc who cant count past 4)
Burnas and overwatch,
loss of fearless wounds,
all nobs being characters,
fliers,
and actually being able to regroup boys squads

Thunderfrog wrote:With the new Eldar Jetbike rules... I assume it works like this...


Move Phase: 12"
Shoot Phase: Flat out 24" or fire.
Assault Phase: 2d6 Move or charge if Flat out was not chosen?)

Doesn't this effectively give you Star Engines (+12 move) for free? I'm assuming you cannot buy Star Engines and move 36" in the move phase for 48" of overall speed.

Jetbikes boost for 24", Eldar Jetbikes boost for 36".

Other things, seems Eldar star engines allow 12" move, 12" boost" then 18" flat out. (FAQ seems to only limit its use when dis/embarking and shooting, and Flat out only limits doing things after)

Also Banshees have power weapons (not swords)... As the rules state to refer to the model would this mean that the old models with axes would have power axes (S4 AP2 I10 first turn, then I1 the following turns)?

With that said, how does that rule work with conversions? Are all 3 base types of power weapons considered equal and count as whichever you feel like adding on, or does it go by what the current unaltered model has? If the latter, how would this work for older models like the banshees?

Technically, the only Banshee model with an axe was an Exarch, so you could argue normal Banshees have only ever had swords. That aside, GW offered no guidance other that "what the model has" which means, to me, model whatever you want. They've used more specific language on bases (must be on the base the model comes with) so it's not like they don't know how to do it.

skarsol wrote:Technically, the only Banshee model with an axe was an Exarch, so you could argue normal Banshees have only ever had swords. That aside, GW offered no guidance other that "what the model has" which means, to me, model whatever you want. They've used more specific language on bases (must be on the base the model comes with) so it's not like they don't know how to do it.

Still, the prospect of snipping off all those swords and modeling axes and then having them randomly FAQ it.. it's not appealing.

skarsol wrote:Technically, the only Banshee model with an axe was an Exarch, so you could argue normal Banshees have only ever had swords. That aside, GW offered no guidance other that "what the model has" which means, to me, model whatever you want. They've used more specific language on bases (must be on the base the model comes with) so it's not like they don't know how to do it.

Yah I actually like this change. The diversity brought about is nice. Strike fast but weaker, or slower but stronger. All for the same price points wise. Yes it is annoying to possibly have to remodel stuff(being that it's clearly a ploy to make GW money). But it also gives you choices we only partially had before.

For my Death Cult Assassins, if I wanted to cover my bases, I would have to take off one sword off each one and replace it with an axe. Then depending on the opponent they could decide to use the AP3 sword at I6 or he AP2 axe at I1.


But my guys look sweet with double swords and switching one out is going to be a pain in the buttocks.

Joe Mama wrote:For my Death Cult Assassins, if I wanted to cover my bases, I would have to take off one sword off each one and replace it with an axe. Then depending on the opponent they could decide to use the AP3 sword at I6 or he AP2 axe at I1.


But my guys look sweet with double swords and switching one out is going to be a pain in the buttocks.

Modelling for advantage much...... jeez. That is almost the very definition of that. I would also, as your opponent, in a game, refuse to play you.

The models come with 2xSwords. These in game terms are the equivalent to the current normal AP3 power weapons that exist in the rulebook. If you modelled them to have an axe as well, so they could choose which to attack with; you have actually just changed the models according to not only what GW declared their weapons to be; but also differentiated from the codex.

Do they have an option to upgrade to an axe... no, they do not. Therefore, anyone who is swapping a sword for an axe on DCAs or anything else that is similarly armed and never had the option for a specific axe would be modelling for advantage and as far as I am concerned, cheating, since you are giving the unit illegal wargear options.

When an axe and a sword do the same thing rules wise and points wise, it`s a matter of preference and looks which you use. When they differ in rules and also points values potentially or have no option, then you should not be doing it. Power Axe and Power Sword is like saying you are going to swap half your tactical squad to storm bolters since it`s basically the same thing now in 6th and you want the option what to use.

I am sure some would disagree, but, I feel this is pretty clear cut.

Edit: Just pointing out, aside from speculation here, I see nothing in the 6th BRB or the FAQs for the armies I have looked at; saying you may swap out your `power weapons`for the different variations. If they wanted us to be able to give guys AP2 axes over the normal AP3 swords and generic stuff, I think they would have clearly stated in the book that you can choose to use whatever weapon when you are allowed to buy a power weapon. If this is the case, I missed it, please show me where. :é

IdentifyZero wrote:Modelling for advantage much...... jeez. That is almost the very definition of that. I would also, as your opponent, in a game, refuse to play you.

Your choice, but it is completely legal and not MFA anymore than modelling a combi-melta on a sargeant that doesn't come with one.

The models come with 2xSwords. These in game terms are the equivalent to the current normal AP3 power weapons that exist in the rulebook. If you modelled them to have an axe as well, so they could choose which to attack with; you have actually just changed the models according to not only what GW declared their weapons to be; but also differentiated from the codex.

Actually, some of them come with only one sword. The codex says 2 Power Weapons, which the new rulebook explicitly says the type is determined by whatever the model is armed with. Are you saying we can't convert models now?

Do they have an option to upgrade to an axe... no, they do not. Therefore, anyone who is swapping a sword for an axe on DCAs or anything else that is similarly armed and never had the option for a specific axe would be modelling for advantage and as far as I am concerned, cheating, since you are giving the unit illegal wargear options.

It isn't an upgrade. They have power weapons, GW says you look at the model to check to see what kind. Mine has Axe/Sword.

Edit: Just pointing out, aside from speculation here, I see nothing in the 6th BRB or the FAQs for the armies I have looked at; saying you may swap out your `power weapons`for the different variations. If they wanted us to be able to give guys AP2 axes over the normal AP3 swords and generic stuff, I think they would have clearly stated in the book that you can choose to use whatever weapon when you are allowed to buy a power weapon. If this is the case, I missed it, please show me where. :é

There's nothing because there's no swap. All units that can buy power weapons have the possibility of having any of the kinds dependent on what they look like.

Yah I Was under that understanding as well pretre. I dont see it as modelling for advantage, as much as I see it as using your options. Which is very different.

IdentifyZero wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:For my Death Cult Assassins, if I wanted to cover my bases, I would have to take off one sword off each one and replace it with an axe. Then depending on the opponent they could decide to use the AP3 sword at I6 or he AP2 axe at I1.

Modelling for advantage much...... jeez. That is almost the very definition of that. I would also, as your opponent, in a game, refuse to play you.

Uh, hello, nice to meet you. Did you *read* the rules for 6th edition? A 'Power Weapon' can be a sword, a halberd, an axe, a staff. Depending on what it is it has different AP values and strength values. DCA get two power weapons. Not two swords. Give me a reasonble argument for why they HAVE TO be modeled as swords. They don't.

Chancetragedy wrote:Yah I Was under that understanding as well pretre. I dont see it as modelling for advantage, as much as I see it as using your options. Which is very different.

Exactly. For most codices, people should start viewing it like so:

The Sergeant may take a Power Sword, Power Axe, or Power Maul.......XX points

Instead of just:

The Sergeant may take a Power Weapon...XX points

For my Guard I'm going to be replacing most of my power swords with power axes since the whole point of them was to provide a chance against Terminators

Vladsimpaler wrote:
Instead of just:

The Sergeant may take a Power Weapon...XX points

Well under 6th Edition, 'Power Weapon' is a broad term, which includes, Power Sword, Power Axe, Power Maul and the like. So as long as they know the definition for 'Power Weapon' they'll know what they can do.

Joe Mama wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:For my Death Cult Assassins, if I wanted to cover my bases, I would have to take off one sword off each one and replace it with an axe. Then depending on the opponent they could decide to use the AP3 sword at I6 or he AP2 axe at I1.

Modelling for advantage much...... jeez. That is almost the very definition of that. I would also, as your opponent, in a game, refuse to play you.

Uh, hello, nice to meet you. Did you *read* the rules for 6th edition? A 'Power Weapon' can be a sword, a halberd, an axe, a staff. Depending on what it is it has different AP values and strength values. DCA get two power weapons. Not two swords. Give me a reasonble argument for why they HAVE TO be modeled as swords. They don't.

Agreed. Its in the rules that power weapons are now a catch all term.

Though the fact that DCA get two of them means you can have any two you want which is why I think he thinks its cheesy. I certainly wouldnt mind mine with power axes and power mauls. Delicious S6 Assassins!

Joe Mama wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:For my Death Cult Assassins, if I wanted to cover my bases, I would have to take off one sword off each one and replace it with an axe. Then depending on the opponent they could decide to use the AP3 sword at I6 or he AP2 axe at I1.

Modelling for advantage much...... jeez. That is almost the very definition of that. I would also, as your opponent, in a game, refuse to play you.

Uh, hello, nice to meet you. Did you *read* the rules for 6th edition? A 'Power Weapon' can be a sword, a halberd, an axe, a staff. Depending on what it is it has different AP values and strength values. DCA get two power weapons. Not two swords. Give me a reasonble argument for why they HAVE TO be modeled as swords. They don't.

I do not appreciate your sarcasm or tone of your reply, I even stated I may have missed something.

That said I asked for where I could find GW says you can swap out the power weapon to be a sword axe halberd etc...

I did not see any FAQ or line in the BRB that says `When a unit has the option to buy a power weapon for x points, it may choose between a sword, axe, halberd or maul`

I`m asking that to be pointed out to me, since I cannot obviously, find this line that several of you seem to be referencing.

Instead of responding with hostility, try to think twice before you post and decide if the person was even attacking you and rather than your counterargument to please show me where it says this; your argument is to ask for further proof to the contrary.. dissapointing, but typical of most wargamers. You are right, because you feel you should be. There could be a big circled off page in the BRB that says this, but instead of stating it and providing the proof, you just rant.


If you cannot do that, simply state as such, since several posters have provided the arguments and logic behind why they will be doing this, without providing a single shred of proof that this is allowed or even intended. I have not seen a line in the BRB that says I can change out the lines in my codex entries.

Also, please, don`t try to interpret RAW so blindly, because a power weapon by your interpretation could also be a power fist or a thunder hammer; both are power weapons. See where I am heading with thisÉ

TLR Page Number please and exact wording that allows you to change your unit entries and wargear options to the new variations on what used to be the category `power weapon`. If a line in the BRB says you can choose whichever you want, then my point is moot, as I`ve stated. So far, nobody has provided that.

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

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

Sounds pretty clear to me. If the model shipped with a sword, it has a sword. If an axe it has an axe. If a maul, it has a maul. If you are converting the unit from scratch, clearly, you could choose this yourself.

I think the whole: `Look at the model to tell which type of power weapon it has...` is different then, feel free to swap out your current models power weapons for any variation you feel like.

IdentifyZero wrote:

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

Sounds pretty clear to me. If the model shipped with a sword, it has a sword. If an axe it has an axe. If a maul, it has a maul. If you are converting the unit from scratch, clearly, you could choose this yourself.

I think the whole: `Look at the model to tell which type of power weapon it has...` is different then, feel free to swap out your current models power weapons for any variation you feel like.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't say. Look at the kit to see which weapons come on the sprues... It says look at the model to see what weapon it has.....

There have never been restrictions on what you could or could not convert before, as long as the model has legal wargear choices.

Where does it stop you from putting a new sword on there that looks cooler? Or an axe or a maul?

What if I converted all of my DCA in 5th edition to have weird weapons? (Which they do in fact have, since I used Wyches to make my DCA.) They all have different weapon choices based on what I had before 6th launched. Is that modelling for advantage? Do I need to provide proof that I made the models during 5th?

IdentifyZero wrote:

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

Sounds pretty clear to me. If the model shipped with a sword, it has a sword. If an axe it has an axe. If a maul, it has a maul. If you are converting the unit from scratch, clearly, you could choose this yourself.

I think the whole: `Look at the model to tell which type of power weapon it has...` is different then, feel free to swap out your current models power weapons for any variation you feel like.

Why? GWs Chaos Terminators set comes with 2 Power Axes, a Power Fist, a Chainfist and a Power Maul. You are effectively saying that that unit must use those weapons as those are the ones they are supplied with, rather than taking a spare Power Axe from another set and swapping one guys Power Maul for it.

Remember, it's considered that all the variant Power WEAPONS are equal in game terms. I don't really mind your Ini 4 or 5 model swapping a sword for an axe, when it gives me the chance to kill it before it swings. You're basically swapping a Power Sword (Weapon in the old books) which is arguably better against anything but Terminator saves, for a weaker version of a Powerfist. That's fine.

IdentifyZero wrote:I did not see any FAQ or line in the BRB that says `When a unit has the option to buy a power weapon for x points, it may choose between a sword, axe, halberd or maul`

??? You did read the section on power weapons in the rule book, yes? It lists what those power weapons can be. There is a chart and everything. 'Power Weapom' is a broad category, made up of specific weapon types. This new edition gives us options.

If the model shipped with a sword, it has a sword. If an axe it has an axe. If a maul, it has a maul. If you are converting the unit from scratch, clearly, you could choose this yourself.

How absurdly unfair would your solution be? Full conversions can take any weapons, but no one can partially convert a model to change the weapon? Eh?

IdentifyZero wrote:

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

Sounds pretty clear to me. If the model shipped with a sword, it has a sword. If an axe it has an axe. If a maul, it has a maul. If you are converting the unit from scratch, clearly, you could choose this yourself.

I think the whole: `Look at the model to tell which type of power weapon it has...` is different then, feel free to swap out your current models power weapons for any variation you feel like.

I have Marines armed with Swords, Axes, Mauls, and I have converted a great many. Essentially stating that you can't swap weapons, isn't prohibited by any codex or from the BRB, unless a rule states that X Model carries X special weapon. So it wouldn't be modelling for an advantage as there is also a disadvantage to the current rules for each Power Weapon Type.

I don't even know why I'm involved in this debate, I play Tau...

pretre wrote:There have never been restrictions on what you could or could not convert before, as long as the model has legal wargear choices.

EXACTLY. Under 'Power Weapons' in the rulebook we have all the legal choices for 6th Edition. We pick from those legal choices when a model / unit can take a 'power weapon.'

Is that modelling for advantage?

It's an advantage because it gives you flexibility. But it is also completely, 100% legal.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:

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

Sounds pretty clear to me. If the model shipped with a sword, it has a sword. If an axe it has an axe. If a maul, it has a maul. If you are converting the unit from scratch, clearly, you could choose this yourself.

I think the whole: `Look at the model to tell which type of power weapon it has...` is different then, feel free to swap out your current models power weapons for any variation you feel like.

Why? GWs Chaos Terminators set comes with 2 Power Axes, a Power Fist, a Chainfist and a Power Maul. You are effectively saying that that unit must use those weapons as those are the ones they are supplied with, rather than taking a spare Power Axe from another set and swapping one guys Power Maul for it.

Those are not examples of models that are supposed to be armed with specific weapons as dictated by the model. You are building the model yourself and can arm it how you want, a model that ships with a sword attached, is clearly, meant to be armed with a sword.


I think you are overlooking some key facts in regards to this change and funny enough, all the players who are posting in defense presently seem to be referring to their GKs and Death cult assassins except for the poor example above, which is speaking of models you choose the weaponry of:

Face the facts:

#1. Power Weapon has constituted sword, axe and weird variations thereof for several editions and all have had identical rules.

#2. Several codices from 5th edition, the ones with the so called 'written for 6th rules' in mind, do not have alternate weapon choices listed for power weapon as regardless of appearance.

#3. GW also put out FAQs for every single army, none of those FAQs state you can swap out your power weapon to represent any type of weapon you want. Some models you could clearly get away with arming with a fist, maul or axe; as you arm them yourself. Other models are released by GW, for example, a special character with a power weapon or mastercrafted power weapon. Here is a good example:

Character wargear entry is listed as a mastercrafted power weapon (Think good example is codex: dark angels, master of the ravenwing on jetbike) and is not listed as being a STR6 Relic Blade like Azraels. I do not see any interpretation anywhere, that allows you to go ahead, swap his sword and make it an axe or a maul.

#4. With that in mind, the BRB does not say anywhere, you can change your existing models weaponry to suit your purposes in regards to this change to power weapons. That clearly, would not stop anyone from doing it and nobody can verify if you had them this way before for 'looks', but clearly, if you are changing them to have an axe and a sword, you are not modelling for looks now, but for advantage: THE ADVANTAGE OF HAVING TWO DIFFERENT ATTACK OPTIONS.

#5. Refusing to acknowledge that changing 1 of your 2 weapons on your DCA in 6th edition from a sword to an axe is for anything but rules advantage, you are not tricking anyone but yourself. Had you wanted them to look cool and varied, you may have done that in 5th edition or converted your own DCAs, as a poster has mentioned they did with wyches. In this case, he is not stating, 'omg axe and sword, so op, gonna swap all my guys to have both so I can use whatever I like!'.

This is the pleasure of building your own units though, in the example of the person who converted his DCAs. The only issues that might arise further in changes like this, is people claiming counts as, the weapons need to be clearly distinguishable. Now, the game is pretty clear as to what type of weapon does what. Prior, an axe, sword and maul all had the same stats in close combat for the past two editions (With some codex exceptions).

#6. The fact that several people on this post, have stated, explicitly that they are changing their weapons to have multiple attacks at differing values and options has nothing to do with you modelling what you like or think looks cool or you would have done it before; that is called modelling for advantage.

#7. So, while it may be an interpretation of the rules that when you buy a power weapon now, you can choose which it is within the guidelines listed (Still needs an FAQ as it is open to far too much abuse right now, including modifying special characters). None of this changes the fact, that changing your weapons out for rules advantage is modelling for advantage.

IdentifyZero wrote:Those are not examples of models that are supposed to be armed with specific weapons as dictated by the model. You are building the model yourself and can arm it how you want, a model that ships with a sword attached, is clearly, meant to be armed with a sword.

Since when? Seriously, do you have anything other than your own opinion to support this? 6th Edition specifically tells us what counts as a power weapon. So if your model can take a power weapon, under the rules, it can take a power sword, a power axe, power halberd, power maul, power stave.... because those are all power weapons.


And again, you are making an absurd distinction between purchased models and fully converted ones. Why should people who fully convert a model get to pick the type of power weapon but people who buy models not allowed to do so? That's illogical.

Joe Mama wrote:

pretre wrote:There have never been restrictions on what you could or could not convert before, as long as the model has legal wargear choices.

EXACTLY. Under 'Power Weapons' in the rulebook we have all the legal choices for 6th Edition. We pick from those legal choices when a model / unit can take a 'power weapon.'

Is that modelling for advantage?

It's an advantage because it gives you flexibility. But it is also completely, 100% legal.

I didn't say it was illegal at any point, I have stated over and over it is modelling for advantage in the case of several of the people who have posted. There is no escaping the FACT, that if you are changing your models to take advantage of rules or to gain an advantage, edge... it is modelling for advantage.

Why keep denying it?

IdentifyZero wrote:none of those FAQs state you can swap out your power weapon to represent any type of weapon you want.

'Power Weapon' is a broad category of weapons. If you go from power sword to power axe, you still have a power weapon, since they are both power weapons.

Joe Mama wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:Those are not examples of models that are supposed to be armed with specific weapons as dictated by the model. You are building the model yourself and can arm it how you want, a model that ships with a sword attached, is clearly, meant to be armed with a sword.

Since when? Seriously, do you have anything other than your own opinion to support this? 6th Edition specifically tells us what counts as a power weapon. So if your model can take a power weapon, under the rules, it can take a power sword, a power axe, power halberd, power maul, power stave.... because those are all power weapons.


And again, you are making an absurd distinction between purchased models and fully converted ones. Why should people who fully convert a model get to pick the type of power weapon but people who buy models not allowed to do so? That's illogical.

If you purchase the GW Model that has a fixed armament and you change it for advantage, you are modelling for advantage.

Someone who builds their own model, is not, swapping the weapon for something more advantageous.

I think most of you are failing to read beyond this and realize, I am calling out the modelling for advantage people, that is all. I stated I wouldn't play someone who obviously did that. I didn't say it was illegal, I did ask for a quote to the rules, where it says you can and have even accepted the definition despite poor wording, as you can be armed with any weapon out of power weapon if you can purchase it for your unit.

I fail to see how this takes away from it being MODELLING FOR ADVANTAGE!

Please don't make me define advantage for all of you, that would be insulting the intelligence of the crowd here and you are all very smart individuals, so I do not want to belittle with anything like that. What blows my mind, is how some of you are trying to defend that this is anything but modelling for advantage.

IdentifyZero wrote:it is modelling for advantage.

It is a new feature of the rules, here in 6th Edition. You, with your refusal to play people over this, make it sound like some sneaky underhanded tactic, when it is obvious to everyone else that GW put this in on purpose to give people more options (and as always, to sell more stuff). Really. It's a basic, fundamental feature of the new CC system which gives power weapons different AP values.

Joe Mama wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:none of those FAQs state you can swap out your power weapon to represent any type of weapon you want.

'Power Weapon' is a broad category of weapons. If you go from power sword to power axe, you still have a power weapon, since they are both power weapons.

Way to continuously avoid the point!!! I've acknowledged several times you can arm the models how you want.

This is about modelling for advantage, please, go ahead and defend how you swapping out is not based on this:

Joe Mama wrote:For my Death Cult Assassins, if I wanted to cover my bases, I would have to take off one sword off each one and replace it with an axe. Then depending on the opponent they could decide to use the AP3 sword at I6 or he AP2 axe at I1.


But my guys look sweet with double swords and switching one out is going to be a pain in the buttocks.

Some key terms: to cover my bases, take off one sword, replace it with an axe, depending on opponent could decide to use AP3 or AP2. Just a brief summary, followed up by "my guys look sweet with double swords".

Based on this, you are not modelling for appearance. You are modelling for advantage. That is the point I am making, instead you keep trying to refute things I've acknowledged multiple times.

IdentifyZero wrote:#5. Refusing to acknowledge that changing 1 of your 2 weapons on your DCA in 6th edition from a sword to an axe is for anything but rules advantage, you are not tricking anyone but yourself. Had you wanted them to look cool and varied, you may have done that in 5th edition or converted your own DCAs, as a poster has mentioned they did with wyches. In this case, he is not stating, 'omg axe and sword, so op, gonna swap all my guys to have both so I can use whatever I like!'.

This is the pleasure of building your own units though, in the example of the person who converted his DCAs. The only issues that might arise further in changes like this, is people claiming counts as, the weapons need to be clearly distinguishable. Now, the game is pretty clear as to what type of weapon does what. Prior, an axe, sword and maul all had the same stats in close combat for the past two editions (With some codex exceptions).

So now, in order for them to be easily distinguishable, I need to update my Wych DCA to have clear weapons (swords/axes/mauls) since right now they have chains, fist weapons, knives, etc. I plan on mixing in a variety into the squad when I update them to 6th edition.

Oh oh.

Joe Mama wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:it is modelling for advantage.

It is a new feature of the rules, here in 6th Edition. You, with your refusal to play people over this, make it sound like some sneaky underhanded tactic, when it is obvious to everyone else that GW put this in on purpose to give people more options (and as always, to sell more stuff). Really. It's a basic, fundamental feature of the new CC system which gives power weapons different AP values.

See your quote here in this post, where you state your intent to model for advantage? Now you are trying to defend it as new rules, we are ALL aware it is new rules and each edition brings changes.

The question is, who are you fooling by the continuous claim it is not modelling for advantage? You are changing weapons, for no other reason, then to take ADVANTAGE of the new rules, to take ADVANTAGE of the flexibility you may now have etc...

IdentifyZero wrote:You are modelling for advantage. That is the point I am making,

Joe Mama wrote:

pretre wrote:Is that modelling for advantage?

It's an advantage ... But it is also completely, 100% legal.

Seems you missed this before.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

IdentifyZero wrote:You are changing weapons, for no other reason, then to take ADVANTAGE of the new rules, to take ADVANTAGE of the flexibility you may now have etc...

Uh, for reals? I am not being punk'd right now? Of course I choose wargear on the basis of whether or not it will be helpful to my army. Due to the current rules, within the category of 'Power Weapon' I have choices to make. Just like everyone else.


You refusing to play people over this is downright absurd.

pretre wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:#5. Refusing to acknowledge that changing 1 of your 2 weapons on your DCA in 6th edition from a sword to an axe is for anything but rules advantage, you are not tricking anyone but yourself. Had you wanted them to look cool and varied, you may have done that in 5th edition or converted your own DCAs, as a poster has mentioned they did with wyches. In this case, he is not stating, 'omg axe and sword, so op, gonna swap all my guys to have both so I can use whatever I like!'.

This is the pleasure of building your own units though, in the example of the person who converted his DCAs. The only issues that might arise further in changes like this, is people claiming counts as, the weapons need to be clearly distinguishable. Now, the game is pretty clear as to what type of weapon does what. Prior, an axe, sword and maul all had the same stats in close combat for the past two editions (With some codex exceptions).

So now, in order for them to be easily distinguishable, I need to update my Wych DCA to have clear weapons (swords/axes/mauls) since right now they have chains, fist weapons, knives, etc. I plan on mixing in a variety into the squad when I update them to 6th edition.

Oh oh.

Not sure what 'Oh oh' is supposed to mean, so I will ignore it.

You nailed it, you do need to update your Wych DCA to properly identify which weapons they wield now due to the changes, given their chains, fists and knives are what they are armed with. Granted, if you were having all of their weapons count as power swords for example, I don't think you would ever have an issue. If some have mauls, some have axes and some have swords etc.. then for sure, you should definitely change them up. As many of us who have played for quite some time know, the units have changed quite a bit over the past 20 years and some once legal options are no longer legal and in many cases, you either counts-as, put the model away or convert it to suit.

WYSIWYG right?

Changing your clearly defined weapons, in this case, DCA Swords into axes, is not fixing them to be proper with the current rules, but modelling for advantage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joe Mama wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:You are modelling for advantage. That is the point I am making,

Joe Mama wrote:

pretre wrote:Is that modelling for advantage?

It's an advantage ... But it is also completely, 100% legal.

Seems you missed this before.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

IdentifyZero wrote:You are changing weapons, for no other reason, then to take ADVANTAGE of the new rules, to take ADVANTAGE of the flexibility you may now have etc...

Uh, for reals? I am not being punk'd right now? Of course I choose wargear on the basis of whether or not it will be helpful to my army. Due to the current rules, within the category of 'Power Weapon' I have choices to make. Just like everyone else.


You refusing to play people over this is downright absurd.

I did not miss it, seems you should re-read a post about two up when I replied to you where I said I wasn't disputing the legality of it rules wise.

Let's use some logic here Joe, everything I've seen from you tells me you are a very intelligent and articulate person, so...

You admit, this is for advantage as you do not HAVE to change these units.

You are now modelling your units due to these changes, that give a potential advantage.

A + B = C.

In this case Advantage + Modelling = Modelling for Advantage (To put it really simply)


FYI - the refusing to play people thing? There is a reason I don't go play in most stores and deal with the counts-as-kiddies, the plastic grey armies or the people who simply just have to jump on the bandwagon to the very best thing. I didn't say I would refuse to play you, because you planned to make some DCAs with axes/swords.

I said I would not play people who model for advantage, if I met you and never spoke to you? I would have no way of knowing when or where you did the modifications and it would not matter. You did state you were modelling for advantage in your post though, there is no dispute over that. With that in mind, knowing that, yes, I would not play with you, as a stranger; only knowing that about you. Does it matter? No, because we would never play.

I am also sorry if that statement has caused contention between you and I, it was not meant as an attack on you or a single out like (OMG I"LL NEVER PLAY AGAINST JOE MAMA). It was a blanket statement. Just like I wouldn't play against the kind of person who models a 12" extra barrel at the end of their tank for the purposes of range... (Worse then that happens locally, on a regular basis)

IdentifyZero wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:it is modelling for advantage.

It is a new feature of the rules, here in 6th Edition. You, with your refusal to play people over this, make it sound like some sneaky underhanded tactic, when it is obvious to everyone else that GW put this in on purpose to give people more options (and as always, to sell more stuff). Really. It's a basic, fundamental feature of the new CC system which gives power weapons different AP values.

See your quote here in this post, where you state your intent to model for advantage? Now you are trying to defend it as new rules, we are ALL aware it is new rules and each edition brings changes.

The question is, who are you fooling by the continuous claim it is not modelling for advantage? You are changing weapons, for no other reason, then to take ADVANTAGE of the new rules, to take ADVANTAGE of the flexibility you may now have etc...

On what page is modeling for advantage not allowed? I saw the blurb about bases, which makes sense,but I didn't see anything saying that modeling for advantage was against the rules? I know it was frowned upon in 5th explicity, and players may have convered that mentality over, but does the rules?

IdentifyZero wrote:Changing your clearly defined weapons, in this case, DCA Swords into axes, is not fixing them to be proper with the current rules, but modelling for advantage.

DCA don't have swords. They have 2 power weapons. I am free to model those two power weapons as I choose. Where are the swords clearly defined?

Acardia wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:it is modelling for advantage.

It is a new feature of the rules, here in 6th Edition. You, with your refusal to play people over this, make it sound like some sneaky underhanded tactic, when it is obvious to everyone else that GW put this in on purpose to give people more options (and as always, to sell more stuff). Really. It's a basic, fundamental feature of the new CC system which gives power weapons different AP values.

See your quote here in this post, where you state your intent to model for advantage? Now you are trying to defend it as new rules, we are ALL aware it is new rules and each edition brings changes.

The question is, who are you fooling by the continuous claim it is not modelling for advantage? You are changing weapons, for no other reason, then to take ADVANTAGE of the new rules, to take ADVANTAGE of the flexibility you may now have etc...

On what page is modeling for advantage not allowed? I saw the blurb about bases, which makes sense,but I didn't see anything saying that modeling for advantage was against the rules? I know it was frowned upon in 5th explicity, and players may have convered that mentality over, but does the rules?

Modelling for advantage has always been around, it is a concept, an idea, a label for a particular action; it will not go away. It's always been frowned on, it's never been strictly against the rules because it is very subjective.

A buddy of mine showed me his friends amazing counts as IG (Squats) and his tank turrets were all the same size as the tanks. In fact, his army looked amazing and was well modeled. The rules state that tank turrets did not count for determining LoS. Guess what? He pulled that kind of crap on people, which despite his beautiful conversions, meant his models were modeled for advantage; in this case, LoS/targetting as the turret gave it los and also made it easier to hide the main tank body. Would I refuse to play him for that kind of shenanigans? Hell yeah.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:Changing your clearly defined weapons, in this case, DCA Swords into axes, is not fixing them to be proper with the current rules, but modelling for advantage.

DCA don't have swords. They have 2 power weapons. I am free to model those two power weapons as I choose. Where are the swords clearly defined?

My point with the DCA, if you use the GW model they ship with a very specific weapon. According to the BRB... well I'm not going to keep rehashing this if you are going to ignore all the current points and this about being modelling for advantage and act like it is about rules.

BRB says the weapon it is armed with.
DCA are sold by GW with swords.

Point was there, you swap it from the sword for anything but looks, you've just modeled for advantage as you wanted the flexibility/advantages another weapon gave you.

So what you are saying is that Modeling for advantage is not in the rules? Other than bases?

Acardia wrote:So what you are saying is that Modeling for advantage is not in the rules? Other than bases?

I guess you must be fairly new to the hobby. The idea of people modelling for advantage has been around since I started in 1992.

It doesn't go away with the advent of a new edition, in fact, it's always a bigger problem during the transition period.

We're not discussing bases, which GW has always been fairly clear on, if a model ships with a base, that is the size of base you have to use. That also does not and has not stopped people from trimming down flyer and skimmer bases for example, placing ICs on 40mm bases, placing 40mm models on 25mm bases etc.. It's rare that kind of thing is ever enforced, except on a community level.

I'm glad you are acknowledging now that is is modeling for advantage. I was not saying they would have an illegal army for doing this. Granted, given the army.unir that seems to be in discussion (death cult assassins) most of them in use by GK players, with the odd SoB player sprinkled in.... helps put into perspective why most players here don't want to acknowledge it if Modeling for advantage.

IdentifyZero wrote:You did state you were modelling for advantage in your post though, there is no dispute over that. With that in mind, knowing that, yes, I would not play with you,

But GW added it to the current rules. It is an intentional feature of the current ruleset. They made AP values for power weapons and power fists. The type of power weapon matters. It's part of the new system. They are encouraging it. And you *still* are treating it like some bad, underhanded tactic. Unbelieveable.

Its not really modeling for advantage because anyone who can take a Power weapon can take any "Power weapon" this means that Armies like Eldar and Dark Eldar have more than 1 to 3 models in there army that can take on enemies with 2+ armor, buying a "Power weapon" is paying the points for your choice of variant of Power weapon

IdentifyZero wrote: Granted, given the army.unir that seems to be in discussion (death cult assassins) most of them in use by GK players, with the odd SoB player sprinkled in.... helps put into perspective why most players here don't want to acknowledge it if Modeling for advantage.

Ahh, and now we come down to it.

Way to attack the poster and not the post.

Mantle wrote:Its not really modeling for advantage because anyone who can take a Power weapon can take any "Power weapon" this means that Armies like Eldar and Dark Eldar have more than 1 to 3 models in there army that can take on enemies with 2+ armor, buying a "Power weapon" is paying the points for your choice of variant of Power weapon

Clearly, you need to look up the definition of modeling in regards to the hobby and advantage.

No matter what way you try to cover the story or how you try to explain it, it's still being re(modelled) or modelled for an advantage.

I've acknowledged repeatly that A) It is legal B) Is is not 'breaking the rules'


I have however, stated a simple, logical conclusion and label for the action that is correct regardless of how you try to explain away your weapon swaps. If I go start swapping out weapons on my BT command squad so some dudes now have axes instead of swords.

Did I follow the rules? Yep.
Is it illegal? Nope.
Did I model for advantage? Yep.

IdentifyZero wrote:

Acardia wrote:So what you are saying is that Modeling for advantage is not in the rules? Other than bases?

I guess you must be fairly new to the hobby. The idea of people modelling for advantage has been around since I started in 1992.

It doesn't go away with the advent of a new edition, in fact, it's always a bigger problem during the transition period.

We're not discussing bases, which GW has always been fairly clear on, if a model ships with a base, that is the size of base you have to use. That also does not and has not stopped people from trimming down flyer and skimmer bases for example, placing ICs on 40mm bases, placing 40mm models on 25mm bases etc.. It's rare that kind of thing is ever enforced, except on a community level.

I'm glad you are acknowledging now that is is modeling for advantage. I was not saying they would have an illegal army for doing this. Granted, given the army.unir that seems to be in discussion (death cult assassins) most of them in use by GK players, with the odd SoB player sprinkled in.... helps put into perspective why most players here don't want to acknowledge it if Modeling for advantage.

No i've been involved for about the same length of time as you, but it's been a concept, just as conversions are a concept, and in this regard both are are entertwined and not against the rules.

pretre wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote: Granted, given the army.unir that seems to be in discussion (death cult assassins) most of them in use by GK players, with the odd SoB player sprinkled in.... helps put into perspective why most players here don't want to acknowledge it if Modeling for advantage.

Ahh, and now we come down to it.

Way to attack the poster and not the post.

How is that attacking you in any way? I'm confused how you manage to victimize yourself there.

I think you do not have any reasonable way to deny it is modelling for advantage, so now you are going to claim it is an attack on you? LOL Come on, let's continue to act like adults and not victimized children, you were not attacked in any way, shape or form.

If I go start swapping out weapons on my BT command squad so some dudes now have meltas instead of bolters.

Did I follow the rules? Yep.
Is it illegal? Nope.
Did I model for advantage? Yep.

Let me change two words to show how silly this is.

pretre wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote: Granted, given the army.unir that seems to be in discussion (death cult assassins) most of them in use by GK players, with the odd SoB player sprinkled in.... helps put into perspective why most players here don't want to acknowledge it if Modeling for advantage.

Ahh, and now we come down to it.

Way to attack the poster and not the post.

That's because there is no post to attack. GW changed how power weapons work. GW made 'power weapon' into a category of weapon, of which the player can choose which one to field. It matters tactically which variant of 'power weapon' is fielded. Hard choices need to be made in many instances.

But IZ is going to keep implying there is something unsavory about doing this. God knows what he thinks about entries like "Swap X for Y, cost Free". He must be really mad about those too.

pretre wrote:

If I go start swapping out weapons on my BT command squad so some dudes now have meltas instead of bolters.

Did I follow the rules? Yep.
Is it illegal? Nope.
Did I model for advantage? Yep.

Let me change two words to show how silly this is.

Sure. Because those are different options.

As opposed to "power weapons" which can include a variety of things.

IdentifyZero wrote:

pretre wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote: Granted, given the army.unir that seems to be in discussion (death cult assassins) most of them in use by GK players, with the odd SoB player sprinkled in.... helps put into perspective why most players here don't want to acknowledge it if Modeling for advantage.

Ahh, and now we come down to it.

Way to attack the poster and not the post.

How is that attacking you in any way? I'm confused how you manage to victimize yourself there.

I think you do not have any reasonable way to deny it is modelling for advantage, so now you are going to claim it is an attack on you? LOL Come on, let's continue to act like adults and not victimized children, you were not attacked in any way, shape or form.

"Granted, given the army.unir that seems to be in discussion (death cult assassins) most of them in use by GK players, with the odd SoB player sprinkled in.... helps put into perspective why most players here don't want to acknowledge it if Modeling for advantage."

Your implication is that of course GK players would MFA. That's just silly. I'm not a GK player, so I wasn't attacked.

Acardia wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:

Acardia wrote:So what you are saying is that Modeling for advantage is not in the rules? Other than bases?

I guess you must be fairly new to the hobby. The idea of people modelling for advantage has been around since I started in 1992.

It doesn't go away with the advent of a new edition, in fact, it's always a bigger problem during the transition period.

We're not discussing bases, which GW has always been fairly clear on, if a model ships with a base, that is the size of base you have to use. That also does not and has not stopped people from trimming down flyer and skimmer bases for example, placing ICs on 40mm bases, placing 40mm models on 25mm bases etc.. It's rare that kind of thing is ever enforced, except on a community level.

I'm glad you are acknowledging now that is is modeling for advantage. I was not saying they would have an illegal army for doing this. Granted, given the army.unir that seems to be in discussion (death cult assassins) most of them in use by GK players, with the odd SoB player sprinkled in.... helps put into perspective why most players here don't want to acknowledge it if Modeling for advantage.

No i've been involved for about the same length of time as you, but it's been a concept, just as conversions are a concept, and in this regard both are are entertwined and not against the rules.

What you are doing is called, seeing what you want to see. I stated in the post above yours for maybe the 10th time? It is not against the rules. Seriously, I am taking the time to read your posts, have the decency to know what you are replying to, in this case, you are shoving something down my throat that I have repeatedly already said and acting as if I am not acknowledging that. If that is not your intent, I apologize for how I have misinterpreted the reply.

All i see, is a bunch of people trying to tell me BUT THE RULES SAY IT IS OK, when I have said yes, they do.

I also stated, modelling for advantage is not 'illegal' or explicitly against the rules.

Please, read, before replying, I am begging you because it seems like you are rehashing stuff I've said already and trying to use it as an argument against me, when I have stated the same things you have.

kirsanth wrote:Sure. Because those are different options.

As opposed to "power weapons" which can include a variety of things.

Fair enough. Although apparently power weapons have different options as well now.

pretre wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Sure. Because those are different options.

As opposed to "power weapons" which can include a variety of things.

Fair enough. Although apparently power weapons have different options as well now.

Exactly. Which was my point.

"Power weapon" as an option, includes options.

Is it MFA? Sure. Is putting a melta on a guy who can take a melta MFA under this definition? Sure.

Is outfitting your Captain with a Relic Blade modelling for advantage (if it is a legitimate option)? Sure.

Are they all okay? Yes.

The reason people are railing against you is this is quite different from MFA where you make a model a different size by changing its profile. There is no 1" tall chimera that is acceptable by the rules. There is a DCA with Axe/Sword.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

pretre wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Sure. Because those are different options.

As opposed to "power weapons" which can include a variety of things.

Fair enough. Although apparently power weapons have different options as well now.

Exactly. Which was my point.

"Power weapon" as an option, includes options.

/highfive

pretre wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:

pretre wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote: Granted, given the army.unir that seems to be in discussion (death cult assassins) most of them in use by GK players, with the odd SoB player sprinkled in.... helps put into perspective why most players here don't want to acknowledge it if Modeling for advantage.

Ahh, and now we come down to it.

Way to attack the poster and not the post.

How is that attacking you in any way? I'm confused how you manage to victimize yourself there.

I think you do not have any reasonable way to deny it is modelling for advantage, so now you are going to claim it is an attack on you? LOL Come on, let's continue to act like adults and not victimized children, you were not attacked in any way, shape or form.

"Granted, given the army.unir that seems to be in discussion (death cult assassins) most of them in use by GK players, with the odd SoB player sprinkled in.... helps put into perspective why most players here don't want to acknowledge it if Modeling for advantage."

Your implication is that of course GK players would MFA. That's just silly. I'm not a GK player, so I wasn't attacked.

I own GKs and SoB.

It is a well known and proven stereotype in most cases, especially with the tournaments at the end of 5th that... Grey Knights were pretty much the most complained about, most used army that is also the brunt of many stereotypes; often justified by the people who play the armies themselves.

Look back at the start of this topic, it was filled with GK Paladin players complaining how 'useless' and 'worthless' their army and their terminators are etc.. now.

The only people who should or would be offended by the implication a GK player might model for advantage, is someone who does. That is often the psychological trigger in most blanket or overarching statements that leads into people getting defensive when there is no need to.

Again though, NONE of this changes, that this is modelling for advantage!!! xD

IdentifyZero wrote:The only people who should or would be offended by the implication a GK player might model for advantage, is someone who does. That is often the psychological trigger in most blanket or overarching statements that leads into people getting defensive when there is no need to.

Again though, NONE of this changes, that this is modelling for advantage!!! xD

Also, people who aren't modelling for advantage (in the sense that they are trying to do something unseemly to gain an advantage) when they are simply modelling upgrades appropriately would also be offended.

You seem to have a skewed definition of modelling for advantage. Can you define it for us?

pretre wrote:Is it MFA? Sure. Is putting a melta on a guy who can take a melta MFA under this definition? Sure.

Is outfitting your Captain with a Relic Blade modelling for advantage (if it is a legitimate option)? Sure.

Are they all okay? Yes.

The reason people are railing against you is this is quite different from MFA where you make a model a different size by changing its profile. There is no 1" tall chimera that is acceptable by the rules. There is a DCA with Axe/Sword.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

pretre wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Sure. Because those are different options.

As opposed to "power weapons" which can include a variety of things.

Fair enough. Although apparently power weapons have different options as well now.

Exactly. Which was my point.

"Power weapon" as an option, includes options.

/highfive

Pretre, once again, this has soared over your head and into the clouds.

When you create your squad, is buying a meltagun for a member of the squad a legitimate option? Yes.
When you create your captain and arm him and pay his points, you bought a Relic Blade.

If you decide to put a fancier meltagun on the gunner? It's modelling for looks.
If a new weapon option called the Meltagun 2.0 came out and you swapped the models weapons for no other reason? Modelling for advantage.

If you made a captain with a power sword as an example:

You could claim it as a relic blade, points wise, if you paid or a power weapon (Sword) depending on the points you paid for the unit, as these are different upgrade options you have used; not base wargear.

If you had your DCA using swords for an edition and then find out now, that if you give them axes to, they can have multiple attack options and decide to remodel them?

You modeled for advantage.

If you had DCA using swords fo ran edition and then find out now, you can buy some sexy looking swords to swap out?

You modeled for aesthetic.

pretre wrote:Is it MFA? Sure. Is putting a melta on a guy who can take a melta MFA under this definition? Sure.
Is outfitting your Captain with a Relic Blade modelling for advantage (if it is a legitimate option)? Sure.

Which is why the IZ definition of MFA is silly and ridiculous. It is really better stated as "choosing wargear based on the rules." Sometimes wargear costs points, sometimes it is 'free' (built into the model's cost). Sometimes there are free options, sometimes not. Deciding on a power axe over a power sword is a (free) wargear choice that the 6th edition rules say we can make. But for some reason that I can't wrap my head around, IZ claims having such a choice is bad / sneaky / unhonorable and so on.

IdentifyZero wrote:If you had your DCA using swords for an edition and then find out now, that if you give them axes to, they can have multiple attack options and decide to remodel them?

You modeled for advantage.

If you had DCA using swords fo ran edition and then find out now, you can buy some sexy looking swords to swap out?

You modeled for aesthetic.

Define modelling for advantage. Right now, what you are describing is changing your models to reflect the rules and upgrades available to you, which is MFA only by the loosest possible definition.

Is there anything limiting each model to one variant of power weapon?

I see no problem with modeling your unit that is equipped with "power weapons" with your choice of axes, swords, mauls etc. but having multiples and switching from round to round seems wrong.

What would stop you from gluing every type available around the models waist to have the best weapon for any fight?

Just wondering if the rulebook or FAQ deal with that eventuality.

Eldarain wrote:
What would stop you from gluing every type available around the models waist to have the best weapon for any fight?

Because the model only gets 2 power weapons. You can only model 2.

pretre wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:The only people who should or would be offended by the implication a GK player might model for advantage, is someone who does. That is often the psychological trigger in most blanket or overarching statements that leads into people getting defensive when there is no need to.

Again though, NONE of this changes, that this is modelling for advantage!!! xD

Also, people who aren't modelling for advantage (in the sense that they are trying to do something unseemly to gain an advantage) when they are simply modelling upgrades appropriately would also be offended.

You seem to have a skewed definition of modelling for advantage. Can you define it for us?

You seem to have a skewed definition of advantage.

Definition of ADVANTAGE

1: superiority of position or condition <higher ground gave the enemy the advantage>
2: a factor or circumstance of benefit to its possessor <lacked the advantages of an education>
3 : benefit, gain; especially : benefit resulting from some course of action
4: the first point won in tennis after deuce
— to advantage
: so as to produce a favorable impression or effect <wishing to be seen to advantage>

Just copied and pasted off Webster for you, so you don't have to look it up.

I think the third point here might help you: benefit or gain, especially, resulting from some course of action.

The benefit: Versatility with your weapon options for attacks.

Gain: The ability to attack at differing APs. Also crosses over with benefit, the two are very much the same thing.

Action: Modelling your troops with the different weapon.



Therefore: Modelling for advantage.

Eldarain wrote:Is there anything limiting each model to one variant of power weapon?

Uh, when you pay for a "power weapon" on the model, or it comes with one built in to the cost, it's one. Not an assortment of 4. Each weapon needs to be purchased.

IdentifyZero wrote:You seem to have a skewed definition of advantage.

Definition of ADVANTAGE

1: superiority of position or condition <higher ground gave the enemy the advantage>
2: a factor or circumstance of benefit to its possessor <lacked the advantages of an education>
3 : benefit, gain; especially : benefit resulting from some course of action
4: the first point won in tennis after deuce
— to advantage
: so as to produce a favorable impression or effect <wishing to be seen to advantage>

Just copied and pasted off Webster for you, so you don't have to look it up.

I think the third point here might help you: benefit or gain, especially, resulting from some course of action.

The benefit: Versatility with your weapon options for attacks.

Gain: The ability to attack at differing APs. Also crosses over with benefit, the two are very much the same thing.

Action: Modelling your troops with the different weapon.



Therefore: Modelling for advantage.

Okay, so under your definition. If plasma guns become better than melta guns and I change the weapon type of my models, I have gained a benefit in the new edition by modelling my troops with a different weapon.

I changed my mind. Under your skewed version of MFA, I am definitely MFA. Unfortunately for you, everyone else seems to have a different definition of what MFA is.

IdentifyZero wrote:Therefore: Modelling for advantage.

Tell me how your definition varies from "choosing wargear based on the rules."

Eldarain wrote:Is there anything limiting each model to one variant of power weapon?

I see no problem with modeling your unit that is equipped with "power weapons" with your choice of axes, swords, mauls etc. but having multiples and switching from round to round seems wrong.

What would stop you from gluing every type available around the models waist to have the best weapon for any fight?

Just wondering if the rulebook or FAQ deal with that eventuality.

That is part of what I am getting at here.

It's one thing to be armed with 2 swords or 2 axes for example on a normal unit if they can. To have a sword and an axe and switch back and forth is one of the key reasons, the example by Joe Mama IS Modeling for Advantage.

My definition of MFA would be changing your model in a way not supported by the rule to gain an unfair advantage over your opponent.

Examples:
- Modelling all of your space marine lying down.
- Putting a 3" 'base' under your dreadnought so it can always see over intervening terrain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

IdentifyZero wrote:That is part of what I am getting at here.

It's one thing to be armed with 2 swords or 2 axes for example on a normal unit if they can. To have a sword and an axe and switch back and forth is one of the key reasons, the example by Joe Mama IS Modeling for Advantage.

Let's say I'm a wolf Lord and I buy a TH and a FB. I switch back and forth between two legal wargear choice that I paid for (just like the DCA). Is that MFA?

IdentifyZero wrote:
Sounds pretty clear to me. If the model shipped with a sword, it has a sword. If an axe it has an axe. If a maul, it has a maul. If you are converting the unit from scratch, clearly, you could choose this yourself.

I think the whole: `Look at the model to tell which type of power weapon it has...` is different then, feel free to swap out your current models power weapons for any variation you feel like.

Just to bring up a wacky idea: Sister of battle squad leaders (It's been so long, I can't remember the title...) are sculpted with 2-3 poses. Some with a power weapon maul, some with a power weapon sword. Is it OK, in this case, to chop a maul off and replace with a sword, if there exists a standard model with that variant?

Heck, I'm a wolf lord and buy a Frost Blade and a Frost Axe (two upgrades that cost the same in my codex) so I can swap between. MFA?

Joe Mama wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:Therefore: Modelling for advantage.

Tell me how your definition varies from "choosing wargear based on the rules."

I think my 5 year old nephew might have a better chance of getting the point then someone who does not want to see beyond their own nose here:

You are not swapping your swords for axes or swords for mauls.

You are remodeling to have ONE of EACH (Sword and Axe) to give a clear advantage, units outside of a special character/independent character who can buy multiples of weapons would not be able to have. You are trying to make your DCA, more powerful then they already are, giving them a FURTHER advantage.

Were you just swapping your swords for axes, I might see it.

You are doing 1 sword and 1 axe according to your post for no other purpose then to take advantage of the new rules and ALSO to gain yourself an extra advantage with your DCAs (the ability to swap attack types, which essentially, changes the unit in a very big way).

If you do not see how this is modelling for advantage, I am GLAD I will never have to play you or meet you because it would not end very nicely if I had to deal with such ignorance in real life with any issue.

Can we take this MFA discussion elsewhere now and get back to the FAQ's?

Balance wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:
Sounds pretty clear to me. If the model shipped with a sword, it has a sword. If an axe it has an axe. If a maul, it has a maul. If you are converting the unit from scratch, clearly, you could choose this yourself.

I think the whole: `Look at the model to tell which type of power weapon it has...` is different then, feel free to swap out your current models power weapons for any variation you feel like.

Just to bring up a wacky idea: Sister of battle squad leaders (It's been so long, I can't remember the title...) are sculpted with 2-3 poses. Some with a power weapon maul, some with a power weapon sword. Is it OK, in this case, to chop a maul off and replace with a sword, if there exists a standard model with that variant?

You've converted your model to have an advantage. According to IZ, that's MFA.

pretre wrote:Heck, I'm a wolf lord and buy a Frost Blade and a Frost Axe (two upgrades that cost the same in my codex) so I can swap between. MFA?

Wolf Lord is an IC. He has the ability to purchase specific wargear, in this case, two different weapons that give two different abilities.

DCA are a normal unit, elites/troops or hq depending on your army. They have no options to buy wargear. They were clearly NOT intended to have two weapon types so they could choose which initiative and AP to attack at. If the DCA were swapping from sword to axes? Sure.

Making sure they all have a sword and an axe is modelling for advantage, if you don't get it, you never will.

Death Cult Assassins have official GW models available to them and they're holding swords. If they were holding mixed weapons or strange looking weapons I'd understand the argument for having both power axes and swords on them, but they don't. It's a pretty clear case of modelling for advantage.

You know what the official model looks like and you either change it or alternatively make a new DIY model that doesn't look or play like it. Modelling for advantage.

Balance wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:
Sounds pretty clear to me. If the model shipped with a sword, it has a sword. If an axe it has an axe. If a maul, it has a maul. If you are converting the unit from scratch, clearly, you could choose this yourself.

I think the whole: `Look at the model to tell which type of power weapon it has...` is different then, feel free to swap out your current models power weapons for any variation you feel like.

Just to bring up a wacky idea: Sister of battle squad leaders (It's been so long, I can't remember the title...) are sculpted with 2-3 poses. Some with a power weapon maul, some with a power weapon sword. Is it OK, in this case, to chop a maul off and replace with a sword, if there exists a standard model with that variant?

You're not giving them a power maul and power sword. In this case, they actually do pay for their upgrade as well and are not a regular unit type, but in fact, an upgrade. If you swapped the weapon, that is fine.

the DCA swapping WEAPONS from one type to another, is also fine. The DCA swapping 1 weapon for an axe and having an axe and a sword, is not fine.

IdentifyZero wrote:DCA are a normal unit, elites/troops or hq depending on your army. They have no options to buy wargear. They were clearly NOT intended to have two weapon types so they could choose which initiative and AP to attack at. If the DCA were swapping from sword to axes? Sure.

Making sure they all have a sword and an axe is modelling for advantage, if you don't get it, you never will.

Tell me where you saw the intention for what kind of weapons they should be able to get? I wasn't aware they you had access to the game designers.

And I changed my mind. I completely agree that under your definition of Modelling for Advantage, I am MFA.

I just think that your definition diverges from the rest of ours.

Therion wrote:Death Cult Assassins have official GW models available to them and they're holding two swords. If they were holding mixed weapons or strange looking weapons I'd understand the argument for having both power axes and swords on them, but they don't. It's a pretty clear case of modelling for advantage.

You know what the official model looks like and you either change it or alternatively make a new DIY model that doesn't look or play like it. Modelling for advantage.

Thanks Therion. Exactly what I've been saying :/ *thumbs up*

Tell me where you saw the intention for what kind of weapons they should be able to get? I wasn't aware they you had access to the game designers.

You never looked at the DCA model that Games Workshop makes?

Holy Balls. Its not like the axe strikes at initiative thus making it a no-brainer between it and the sword.

You get two options when you pay for a power weapon
>Initiative of the model, AP3, bonus for two weapons
>I1, models strength +1, AP2, bonus for two weapons (and get murdered by the sword in a challenge before you get to do diddly squat, hence the 'option' to model an axe)

and finally, pay an extra 10 points on average for an I1 weapon that doubles strength and makes you AP2.

You can play either the axe or the sword. If I see a sword and you swing into termies claiming its an axe... no. If you model an axe and swing into my sword wielding sergeant who duels you claiming you too have a sword... no.

Are we seeing the fine points of GW giving ALL players an option without making it a codex entry style option?

Please?

Are you all there yet?

Therion wrote:Death Cult Assassins have official GW models available to them and they're holding swords. If they were holding mixed weapons or strange looking weapons I'd understand the argument for having both power axes and swords on them, but they don't. It's a pretty clear case of modelling for advantage.

You know what the official model looks like and you either change it or alternatively make a new DIY model that doesn't look or play like it. Modelling for advantage.

So anytime you convert a model that doesn't look exactly like the official model, you have MFA? Good to know.

It seems like it would have made more sense if the rules had been written that all current 'power weapons' remain generic 'power weapons' until the governing army list is replaced and/or a FAQ makes the change.

No change to current armies, but when Codex: Sisters of Battle ships (So... 2036?) it could say that a power sword is X, a Power Maul is Y, etc. for appropriate units. FAQs could sparingly 'patch' those instances where a unit should really, really already have a Power Axe or similar to fit canon and game mechanics requirements.

pretre wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:DCA are a normal unit, elites/troops or hq depending on your army. They have no options to buy wargear. They were clearly NOT intended to have two weapon types so they could choose which initiative and AP to attack at. If the DCA were swapping from sword to axes? Sure.

Making sure they all have a sword and an axe is modelling for advantage, if you don't get it, you never will.

Tell me where you saw the intention for what kind of weapons they should be able to get? I wasn't aware they you had access to the game designers.

And I changed my mind. I completely agree that under your definition of Modelling for Advantage, I am MFA.

I just think that your definition diverges from the rest of ours.

There is all of 3 of you arguing that your DCA should be able to have swords and axes at the same time and trying to say it is not MFA.

IdentifyZero wrote:You are remodeling to have ONE of EACH (Sword and Axe) to give a clear advantage,

Yes. Of course. Wargear is taken for advantages. I can take any type of power weapons I want. 'Power Weapon' in codexes now is exactly and 100% equal to the words "choice of Power Sword, Power Maul, Power Axe, or Power Stave."

because it would not end very nicely if I had to deal with such ignorance in real life with any issue.

Please stop with this nonsense unless you are trying to get banned.

Therion wrote:

Tell me where you saw the intention for what kind of weapons they should be able to get? I wasn't aware they you had access to the game designers.

You never looked at the DCA model that Games Workshop makes?

Just checked your gallery. Perhaps those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. This model is clearly not matching what GW made and must be modelled for advantage:

pretre wrote:

Therion wrote:Death Cult Assassins have official GW models available to them and they're holding swords. If they were holding mixed weapons or strange looking weapons I'd understand the argument for having both power axes and swords on them, but they don't. It's a pretty clear case of modelling for advantage.

You know what the official model looks like and you either change it or alternatively make a new DIY model that doesn't look or play like it. Modelling for advantage.

So anytime you convert a model that doesn't look exactly like the official model, you have MFA? Good to know.

You didn't know this before? How long have you played this game again? I can give you some ground rules: Models are put on the bases they are supplied with. Sponsons, guns and turrets are attached to the points in vehicles where they're supposed to. Same goes for access hatches and doors. If you want to have a special looking model, it still has to play like a normal model. Likewise you're not allowed to have your Vendettas attached on their flying bases with their noses pointing towards the ground so they can fit on the table with a 6" move. You have to attach them like they're supposed to. Finally, now that there's a clear distinction on what a power axe and a power sword does, models have what their GW models have. You can't convert your own special Commander Dante with a different weapon just because you don't like the rules of the official one. You can house rule all you want in your home games but don't come to an internet forum preaching that you're not modelling for advantage when you're doing exactly that. In other words you're cheating.

This model is clearly not matching what GW made and must be modelled for advantage:

That is an old model that I used when GW didn't make Thunderwolves. It's not an official model anymore, but I would be allowed to use it because I'd use the rules that the official model has. Don't be dense. You can make your custom DCA models with axes, but during the game they'll count as swords.

Oh and IZ:


Non-stock repressor. That dozer blade and model clearly change the LOS profile. I'm gonna have to go with MFA.

Slackermagee wrote:Holy Balls. Its not like the axe strikes at initiative thus making it a no-brainer between it and the sword.

You get two options when you pay for a power weapon
>Initiative of the model, AP3, bonus for two weapons
>I1, models strength +1, AP2, bonus for two weapons (and get murdered by the sword in a challenge before you get to do diddly squat, hence the 'option' to model an axe)

and finally, pay an extra 10 points on average for an I1 weapon that doubles strength and makes you AP2.

You can play either the axe or the sword. If I see a sword and you swing into termies claiming its an axe... no. If you model an axe and swing into my sword wielding sergeant who duels you claiming you too have a sword... no.

Are we seeing the fine points of GW giving ALL players an option without making it a codex entry style option?

Please?

Are you all there yet?

In this case, it is not an issue of him having one or the other. He wants both a sword and an axe on DCAs to gain unique benefits/advantages that would only be available to a character who sacrificed buying another piece of wargear in most cases. With that in mind, I don't see as many HQs able to take 'two power weapons' as separate options outside of Black Templars who still use the armory.

With that in mind, there are not many units that can take two power weapons out there or that ship with 2 power weapons equipped.

The fact that someone is trying to have both the axe and the sword on a normal unit, in a situation that could only occur for ICs mostly..... that is MFA.

This isn't twin lightning claws on your commander, this isn't a powerfist or thunderhammer and a sword on your commander (HQ/IC) unit.

This is swapping 1 of 2 weapons, to have the advantage of having BOTH options available within a single unit on every single model. If he was just swapping some guys from swords to axes, it would not be an issue.

pretre wrote:
Oh and IZ:


Non-stock repressor. That dozer blade and model clearly change the LOS profile. I'm gonna have to go with MFA.

I think you've run out steam, so now you've just attacked Therion and I with points that do not fit with what is being made here.

If I made an immolator armed with a heavy flamer and a heavy bolter.. that is MFA.

In both cases, what you just linked; were conversions. Sorry that you are so butthurt about being wrong.

Fact is, modelling your DCA to have a sword AND an axe is modelling for advantage. You showing THerion and I's conversions and trying to insult us/say modelling for advantage says one thing: You lost, you know it and now you're grasping at desperate straws to try and form some kind of argument but all you can do is link some photos and go OMG LOOK MFA when it clearly is not in either case. Also, GW makes no model for the Repressor. But to refute your point:

#1. The Line of Sight profile of this vehicle is unchanged, the top hatch of the repressor from FW counts as the turret, thus giving no Line of Sight; either way, my repressor is within 1mm height of the FW model.

#2. The rhino has in no way been shortened or made smaller in any way.

#3. The Dozer blade provides no cover or advantages in terms of Line of Sight.

#4. What you have pointed out and shown here, is what I have called over and over modelling for aesthetic or modelling for looks or conversion. There is no advantage of versatlity or bonus.. benefit.. advantage provided by this vehicle in regards to the normal unit.


Let me fix this example for you:

Had you just linked an immolator with a heavy flamer/heavy bolter turret with 1 of each gun instead of two of the same twin-linked, you would have had a legitimate point; in the same vein as using DCAs with a sword and an axe because you can.

According to this Power Weapon rule, my Lychguard can have 'Hyperphase Axes', even though it is called a Hyperphase Sword; all I'd have to do is convert it to look like a Axe instead of a sword.

I find it contradicting itself, but according to the Power Weapon rules as of this moment, that is legal.

My local gaming companions agreed. I personally find it kind of silly; but it is legal.

If it were intended for them to have the other options, I suppose they would have included them in the Lychguard kit; I dunno, I'll abide by the rule as it stands until it is FAQ'd by 'ol GW.

Therion wrote:You didn't know this before? How long have you played this game again? I can give you some ground rules: Models are put on the bases they are supplied with. Sponsons, guns and turrets are attached to the points in vehicles where they're supposed to. Same goes for access hatches and doors. If you want to have a special looking model, it still has to play like a normal model. Likewise you're not allowed to have your Vendettas attached on their flying bases with their noses pointing towards the ground so they can fit on the table with a 6" move. You have to attach them like they're supposed to. Finally, now that there's a clear distinction on what a power axe and a power sword does, models have what their GW models have. You can't convert your own special Commander Dante with a different weapon just because you don't like the rules of the official one. You can house rule all you want in your home games but don't come to an internet forum preaching that you're not modelling for advantage when you're doing exactly that. In other words you're cheating.

Wow. Okay then. So anytime I convert something to take advantage of a completely legal rule (different kinds of power weapons). I am cheating. Good to know.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

IdentifyZero wrote:With that in mind, there are not many units that can take two power weapons out there or that ship with 2 power weapons equipped.

The fact that someone is trying to have both the axe and the sword on a normal unit, in a situation that could only occur for ICs mostly..... that is MFA.

This is swapping 1 of 2 weapons, to have the advantage of having BOTH options available within a single unit on every single model. If he was just swapping some guys from swords to axes, it would not be an issue.

As it is perfectly legal and your dispute seems to be that you don't like that it happens, I really don't have any other problems with it. Oh noes! I took a legal option. You don't like it, so apply the pejorative MFA to it to try to shame me. GJ!

I am cheating. Good to know.

You're welcome.

Therion wrote:

I am cheating. Good to know.

You're welcome.

Also, you might not want to field that TWC lord. He's not the exact size profile as an actual model. That would be MFA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Way to only quote one part of the post to make your point though. Here, let me do it.

Therion wrote:You can't convert your own special Commander Dante with a different weapon just because you don't like the rules of the official one.

That depends. Does his entry specifically say 'axe' or 'sword' or whatever, or does it just say 'power weapon.' If it is the latter, then yes, of course he can swap his weapon. But I vaguely recall his entry is specific.

In other words you're cheating.

Holy hell, not even IZ went that far.

You can make your custom DCA models with axes, but during the game they'll count as swords.

This is not what the rules says. Sorry dude. DCA have 'power weapons' not 'power swords'

Therion wrote:I am cheating. Good to know.

I just had to forget to quote the extra quote marks.

Also, you might not want to field that TWC lord. He's not the exact size profile as an actual model. That would be MFA.

He is pretty much the exact same size, but if anyone would have a problem with it, in the case of for example my model being smaller and because of a one or two millimeter difference in size being impossible to target from behind a building, I'd allow my model to be shot as per the official model.

DCA have 'power weapons' not 'power swords'

Please take the MFA discussion elsewhere. Thanks!

Manchu wrote:Please take the MFA discussion elsewhere. Thanks!

There's a nice discussion about this point here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/459398.page

/MFA posts deleted.

One more (and last) time: start a thread somewhere else about MFA. Thanks.

sorry only just read about the MFA after I posted

So what does everyone think about the changes to the Black Templar FAQ? Specifically that we are forced to use Drop Pod Assault now?

Mantle wrote:sorry only just read about the MFA after I posted

Also sorry, and said I was, but it disappeared. So I'm saying it again.

I may be misunderstanding, but didn't that just bring BT in line with the other codexes that have DPA?

Mantle wrote:sorry only just read about the MFA after I posted

Sorry same excuse.

Back on topic!

@Pretre Yes but some BT players actually liked there version. . . why I do not know. . . I do know however that as a BA player DPA is a pretty good Idea. . .

To the guy commenting on Orks weathering the storm of three editions, I agree. I'm happy to see they weren't made unplayable.

Rule Number One: Be Polite (including no personal attacks)

Rule Number Two: Stay On-Topic

Please follow our rules!

Thanks ~Manchu

My bad. Sorry.

pretre wrote:I may be misunderstanding, but didn't that just bring BT in line with the other codexes that have DPA?

Yes, without all the other funky toys like locator beacons etc.. I'm sure it will all be taken care of in the WD Codex we will get! (joking).

Lysenis wrote:

Mantle wrote:sorry only just read about the MFA after I posted

Sorry same excuse.

Back on topic!

@Pretre Yes but some BT players actually liked there version. . . why I do not know. . . I do know however that as a BA player DPA is a pretty good Idea. . .

I loved my version all throughout 5th. It actually provides a very good means of countering people who A) Plan on 1/2 your pods coming down turn 1 and B) Makes me laugh when people reserve to deal with my drop pods.

The other plus is, with some great rolls (this is luck based, but so is every aspect of 40k) you can potentially have every drop pod come in a single turn... Combine this with say, the new ally rules and use a proteus to re-roll reserves for example or damocles rhino + an allied IG detachment with master of the fleet, turn 2 templars coming in with every drop pod would have been VERY possible. xD

As it stands, it was a very fun when it did work out even under the old rules. More times then not since 4th edition, I have gotten almost 6-8 pods on turn 2.... I tend to run around 11 in my templars.

Message removed.

IdentifyZero wrote:

pretre wrote:I may be misunderstanding, but didn't that just bring BT in line with the other codexes that have DPA?

Yes, without all the other funky toys like locator beacons etc.. I'm sure it will all be taken care of in the WD Codex we will get! (joking).

Lysenis wrote:

Mantle wrote:sorry only just read about the MFA after I posted

Sorry same excuse.

Back on topic!

@Pretre Yes but some BT players actually liked there version. . . why I do not know. . . I do know however that as a BA player DPA is a pretty good Idea. . .

I loved my version all throughout 5th. It actually provides a very good means of countering people who A) Plan on 1/2 your pods coming down turn 1 and B) Makes me laugh when people reserve to deal with my drop pods.

The other plus is, with some great rolls (this is luck based, but so is every aspect of 40k) you can potentially have every drop pod come in a single turn... Combine this with say, the new ally rules and use a proteus to re-roll reserves for example or damocles rhino + an allied IG detachment with master of the fleet, turn 2 templars coming in with every drop pod would have been VERY possible. xD

As it stands, it was a very fun when it did work out even under the old rules. More times then not since 4th edition, I have gotten almost 6-8 pods on turn 2.... I tend to run around 11 in my templars.

Issue is now that if you reserve everything of have an army that is completely in reserves and the full turn ends you lose. . . would suck right!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Agamemnon2 wrote:You know, arguments like the power weapon can of worms are a great justification for banning conversions altogether. Privateer Press is onto something, I feel.

Then I quit. SImple, I love this game not or the rules, not for the game it self but for the ability to make and kit-bash what I want. I know MANY people that feel the same as I do. This game has the idea of it being a big fething universe so there multiple possibilities.

May have been answered, but the BA FAQ thing about independant charectors having The Red Thirst...lolwhat?

Hey so, if Mandrakes have a 5+ invuln and take more damage from Grey Knights like a daemon, does that mean my mandrakes get to at least cause fear too?

Hahahahahahaha!

automatonsleuth wrote:

MajorWesJanson wrote:

helgrenze wrote:Ok.. the FAQ for Bolster Defenses seems to change the effects from just "ruins" to "any cover" as it gives a new example that modifies "area terrain".
Since "area terrain" can cover woods that gives quite a boost to Scouting units.
Also, since the Aegis Defense line is considered "battlefield debris" can this also be bolstered, making it a 3+ save?

If so, take an aegis line with a quad gun, and put a unit of sniper scouts in there with camo cloaks. Nice little fire base.

The FAQ for Bolster Defences specifically prohibits bolstering Fortifications you've purchased as part of your army list. Now, if that Aegis line was just part of the board's terrain setup, then that's ok. Otherwise, no can do.

Where is this? Been over the FAQ and cannot find it.

Its in the Bolster Defences under the Grey Knight FAQ. I checked the FAQ for the Space Marines and it does not make that distinction but I don't see why it would be any different. No 2+ Cover save from bolstering a Fortification.

And the Fortifications starting on the Table would have the dilapidated rule and only provide a 4+ starting out at best

So, correct me if I'm wrong here, but I take it Tau Stealthsuits now walk around with a +4 coversave?

That sound pretty cool.

Target Lock seems to have gone the way of the C&C Node. Some people will miss it, but I thankfully won't.

ChiliPowderKeg wrote:So, correct me if I'm wrong here, but I take it Tau Stealthsuits now walk around with a +4 coversave?

That sound pretty cool.

No, they walk around with a +3 to cover save, or a 4+ cover save. No +4 cover saves that I know of.

ChiliPowderKeg wrote:So, correct me if I'm wrong here, but I take it Tau Stealthsuits now walk around with a +4 coversave?

That sound pretty cool.

Target Lock seems to have gone the way of the C&C Node. Some people will miss it, but I thankfully won't.

yeah but they still eat an elite slot and cost almost as much as terminators. >_>

ph34r wrote:

ChiliPowderKeg wrote:So, correct me if I'm wrong here, but I take it Tau Stealthsuits now walk around with a +4 coversave?

That sound pretty cool.

No, they walk around with a +3 to cover save, or a 4+ cover save. No +4 cover saves that I know of.

Ah I see now, thanks for clearing that up

acekevin8412 wrote:

ChiliPowderKeg wrote:So, correct me if I'm wrong here, but I take it Tau Stealthsuits now walk around with a +4 coversave?

That sound pretty cool.

Target Lock seems to have gone the way of the C&C Node. Some people will miss it, but I thankfully won't.

yeah but they still eat an elite slot and cost almost as much as terminators. >_>

Just saying it sounds neato. It''s not like I'm fielding them or anything

ph34r wrote:

ChiliPowderKeg wrote:So, correct me if I'm wrong here, but I take it Tau Stealthsuits now walk around with a +4 coversave?

That sound pretty cool.

No, they walk around with a +3 to cover save, or a 4+ cover save. No +4 cover saves that I know of.

Its both, The stealth rule says that it adds +1 to cover and that the model is in the open that it still gets the bonus for a 6+ cover save.

Then the Shrouding rule gives +2 to cover that is cumulative with the stealth rule.

So 4+ cover save in the open and +3 to cover everwhere else.

So I see the 'Nids got nerfed even more. What a pain. Fleet no longer lets you assault which turns Hormogaunts and Genestealers to crap, it altered the way you can assault, Lictors are still crap because they still can't do diddly on the turn they arrive and the change of stealth to a cover bonus only barely helps them with. Mildly annoyed to say the least. And then you've got smash for MC, which the jury is still out on.

And with the Allied detachment everyone else can get extra HQ's, elites, and such but 'Nids have to wait until 2000+ point games that open a second primary FoC but thats not helpful because the other armies can out pick them in every slot of the FoC no matter what. So where's the balance/bonus the 'Nids get to counter that? Will they get a special/unique FoC in their next book?

So far I'm in the middle for how this addition helps and hurts the 'Nids at this point. But we'll see as I dig into it some more.

dalsiandon wrote:So I see the 'Nids got nerfed even more. What a pain. Fleet no longer lets you assault which turns Hormogaunts and Genestealers to crap, it altered the way you can assault, Lictors are still crap because they still can't do diddly on the turn they arrive and the change of stealth to a cover bonus only barely helps them with. Mildly annoyed to say the least. And then you've got smash for MC, which the jury is still out on.

And with the Allied detachment everyone else can get extra HQ's, elites, and such but 'Nids have to wait until 2000+ point games that open a second primary FoC but thats not helpful because the other armies can out pick them in every slot of the FoC no matter what. So where's the balance/bonus the 'Nids get to counter that? Will they get a special/unique FoC in their next book?

So far I'm in the middle for how this addition helps and hurts the 'Nids at this point. But we'll see as I dig into it some more.

I take from it that the armies have to be built ENTIRELY differently now. And yes, Genestealers got shafted HARD...I am trying to figure out what makes a good nid army, but I think it starts with Flyrants (maybe 2), and Hive Guard still don't suck

Some sunshine;

Your MCs get cover saves now, termawall can help.
Flytants Zooming over the field and throwing out shots/powers is concerning.
Your elite Stealers are one of the few units that can move/assault from reserve
Fearless won't hurt your bug horde as badly
You can cycle the Fex groups to get wound allocation out of it--or use a prime to lead the way (For his Look outs)


Flyers are going to be a real issue for you though

True AgeofEgos there are some bright spots, overwatch for my termagants is great. And it does make since why Carnifex can be in units now, and why the Crushing Claws bonus attacks are worth the points now.

The problem with the elite stealers is they are elite and the only consistent anti-vehicle 'Nids have is already elite so we're still stuck in do we want reliable anti-tank or more infantry killing? Ymgarls were good in 5th but they were always seconded to Hive Guard and Zoan's. and I think this is still gonna be the same.
And that goes back to the complaint about the FoC and the allied detachment again.

My own approach to 'nids, now that Psychic hoods have changed?

Psyker bomb.

Flyrants
2 broods of Zoeys
Venomthropes
Tervigon-Gaunt spawn wall.
Genestealer broods advancing behind Gauntwall.
Gargoyles broods for emergency Flyrant cover saves.
Trygons to pop up where the Flyrants are for target saturation and OMG PANIC factor (and high initiative AP2 attacks in combat!)

Best bit? Rolling Psychic Powers before deployment but at that point you will likely know what your opponent has brought.

No vehicles? Swap out Zoey Warp Lance.
Character light or not kitted up nasty units? Swap out some Broodlord powers.
Likely to come to you? Swap out some Tervigon powers.
Fearless? Swap out some Hive Tyrant powers.

The change to Psychic Hoods was a freaking godsend to Tyranids! Yeah, they have a 4+ chance to deny within 6". 50/50. Big deal. I'm more after Biomancy boosts for the Broodlords and HTs tbh. And Infinity gate Tervigons or Zoeys could be hilarious.

Ymgarl are good, but you're giving up a ranged AV slot to take them. Also, multi-assaulting vehicles is nowhere near as good in 6th as you don't get the bonus attacks. Lictors are better as they come in earlier now due to reserve rolls dropping, but multi-wound T4 models are still pretty iffy overall.

Stealers are indeed massively nerfed. My 60 stealer list is never coming out again that's for sure. I think they can still work as smaller broods on the table as broodlord delivery systems.

Mass termagant/tervigon lists with 6 hive guard seems a good solid start. 20-30 gants with TS/AG from the tervigon, preferred enemy from the tyrant. Nice.

Harpies I think are still pretty brittle, but gargoyles look useful especially en masse.

2+ armour seems to be king in this edition, so foot tyrant with armoured shell and dare I say it a tyrannofex may be worthwhile. Not sure I'll take the rupture cannon due to WS3, but go for the infantry shredding templates and charge it right in there.

Broods of fex are still slow and you can only put a single one in a spore. Dakkafex or not at all for me, unless I run them in behind a tyrannofex wall and no one will be even able to see them. Need to see how onslaught really works now in relation to fleet etc.

Is anybody else having trouble pulling up the Tyranid or Space Wolf page? The other pages seem to work fine.

canute wrote:Is anybody else having trouble pulling up the Tyranid or Space Wolf page? The other pages seem to work fine.

Just checked the SW one and it's loading fine (and is still the original version so it wasn't pulled temporarily for an update).

Suddenly stealth suits look like a good option, 2+ cover in most terrain is a great boost.
Broadsides have been nerefed but not shadowsun, she can still fire a two targets! say wha?
I'm glad these are only V1 Erretas, bring on V1.2

DaemonJellybaby wrote:Suddenly stealth suits look like a good option, 2+ cover in most terrain is a great boost.
Broadsides have been nerefed but not shadowsun, she can still fire a two targets! say wha?
I'm glad these are only V1 Erretas, bring on V1.2

They are at least a option now with these updates as opposed to before where my six only appeared in two games (one was a narrative game where I only some crisis suits versus a baneblade and the other was when I fielded every single Tau I carry with me to a game). The natural balance to this is that they have to get within charge range of the target to use their guns due to the poor range they have.

I am curious, are these the real Errata/FAQ? After all, it does say the last time they were updated was January 2011.

Maybe someone hacked the site and put up fake FAQs?

I kid, I kid, but wierd they still have January 2011 as last update. So UNPROFFESIONAL.

warboss wrote:

DaemonJellybaby wrote:Suddenly stealth suits look like a good option, 2+ cover in most terrain is a great boost.
Broadsides have been nerefed but not shadowsun, she can still fire a two targets! say wha?
I'm glad these are only V1 Erretas, bring on V1.2

They are at least a option now with these updates as opposed to before where my six only appeared in two games (one was a narrative game where I only some crisis suits versus a baneblade and the other was when I fielded every single Tau I carry with me to a game). The natural balance to this is that they have to get within charge range of the target to use their guns due to the poor range they have.

Well a small unit with a fusion blaster could be an effective tank hunting squad with that mobile 4+ cover save. Move 6", run D6" (call it 3") then jetpack 2d6" (7") = 16" movement with average rolls. That'll get them down the sides of the board quickly, especially if they start in an infiltrated deployment, ready to hit vehicles from behind/side on turn 2. Equip the Team Leader with the Fusion Blaster and give him a targeting array for BS4. If he misses then you try glancing the vehicle to death by riddling it with Burst Cannons.

Davor wrote:I kid, I kid, but wierd they still have January 2011 as last update. So UNPROFFESIONAL.

Yeah I know, really makes GW look like a bunch of fething clowns in my opinion. That's how seriously they take their jobs.

A Town Called Malus wrote:Well a small unit with a fusion blaster could be an effective tank hunting squad with that mobile 4+ cover save. Move 6", run D6" (call it 3" then jetpack 2d6" (7" = 16" movement with average rolls. That'll get them down the sides of the board quickly, especially if they start in an infiltrated deployment, ready to hit vehicles from behind/side on turn 2. Equip the Team Leader with the Fusion Blaster and give him a targeting array for BS4. If he misses then you try glancing the vehicle to death by riddling it with Burst Cannons.

...first of all, I would disagree strongly with the idea that this is an "effective" strategy (one BS4 melta shot, and if it misses then try to glance with S5 guns...I haven't been able to take a real good look at the new rules yet but I don't think things have changed that much that S5 is suddenly awesomesauce at killing tanks), but even if you could argue that stealthsuits might be at all useful now, they still really aren't because you can't afford to lose even a single Elites slot to them. Tau armies rely on Fast Attack/Heavy Support choices to take out tanks, they're the ones best suited for it and they're slots that have no real competition anyway, your Elites are the ones that are going to be killing what comes out of them in pretty much every single game you play (and all of you guys thinking that fire warriors are suddenly going to be any good at it because of whatever minor "boosts" they got, prepare to be disappointed...fire warriors shouldn't be doing anything but sitting on objectives, and since you can throw grenades now, maybe lobbing an EMP at something that gets too close). Not to mention that as far as glancing tanks to death goes, crisis suits do that so much better anyway with missile pods: twin-linked shots at S7 being fired from 36" away > bunch of S5 being fired from sneezing range, which kinda defeats the entire purpose of your improved stealth in the first place.

Stealth suits aren't good. They weren't good before, and they still aren't now. Don't get me wrong, I wish they were, so I'd have an excuse to use the fething models I bought, but until GW gets a bright idea and makes them troops or something then it's not happening.

That's all my opinion, anyway.

Sidstyler wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:Well a small unit with a fusion blaster could be an effective tank hunting squad with that mobile 4+ cover save. Move 6", run D6" (call it 3" then jetpack 2d6" (7" = 16" movement with average rolls. That'll get them down the sides of the board quickly, especially if they start in an infiltrated deployment, ready to hit vehicles from behind/side on turn 2. Equip the Team Leader with the Fusion Blaster and give him a targeting array for BS4. If he misses then you try glancing the vehicle to death by riddling it with Burst Cannons.

...first of all, I would disagree strongly with the idea that this is an "effective" strategy (one BS4 melta shot, and if it misses then try to glance with S5 guns...I haven't been able to take a real good look at the new rules yet but I don't think things have changed that much that S5 is suddenly awesomesauce at killing tanks), but even if you could argue that stealthsuits might be at all useful now, they still really aren't because you can't afford to lose even a single Elites slot to them. Tau armies rely on Fast Attack/Heavy Support choices to take out tanks, they're the ones best suited for it and they're slots that have no real competition anyway, your Elites are the ones that are going to be killing what comes out of them in pretty much every single game you play (and all of you guys thinking that fire warriors are suddenly going to be any good at it because of whatever minor "boosts" they got, prepare to be disappointed...fire warriors shouldn't be doing anything but sitting on objectives, and since you can throw grenades now, maybe lobbing an EMP at something that gets too close). Not to mention that as far as glancing tanks to death goes, crisis suits do that so much better anyway with missile pods: twin-linked shots at S7 being fired from 36" away > bunch of S5 being fired from sneezing range, which kinda defeats the entire purpose of your improved stealth in the first place.

Stealth suits aren't good. They weren't good before, and they still aren't now. Don't get me wrong, I wish they were, so I'd have an excuse to use the fething models I bought, but until GW gets a bright idea and makes them troops or something then it's not happening.

That's all my opinion, anyway.

The threat of that Fusion Shot might work better than the fusion shot itself. A unit of Stealth Suits in terrain with a fusion blaster will make many players think twice about driving a vehicle anywhere near that terrain, which grants you better control of that area. To get these Suits out that terrain he either has to get through a 2+ cover save, use a weapon which negates cover saves, such as a flamer, or assault them. This diverts firepower and units away from other areas of the battlefield.

Stealth suits in terrain could become one of our best objective denial units.

Hey, Wolf Scouts are not so incredible unusefull (like i had thouth). They surelly have lost the "melta-bombs on the prak from behind", but Accute senses makes them great, it will be hard to not roll that 3+ and decide weathever you want them to come from.

One funny thing is that Space Wolves have an army wide Special Rule, who is usefull for only 2 units in the army, lol (Wolf Scouts and Wolf Guard Battle Leaders with Hunters Saga).

Not to mention, don't most Marine players like using a single BS4 Melta shot, followed by rapidfire Str 4 fire to try and take down most vehicles? I mean, that's essentially a tac squad.