Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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

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

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

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

He is stating that it is MFA to use it.

Jidmah wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joe Mama wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So Tyranid Warriors with boneswords were MFA? Lash Whips?

Shrikes?

kirsanth wrote:Page reference?

The page reference you're looking for is from any book that teaches you English. You need to first figure out what 'modelling' means; what 'for' means; and what 'advantage' means. They you can take part in the discussion. It just so happens that I'm a generous guy so I'll help you out:

1) I look at the Death Cult Assassin model and notice it's holding power swords. I don't like power swords. What I do like however is a combination of power swords and axes.
2) I then take a miniature, and MODEL it to have an axe and a sword.
3) I agree that it gives me an ADVANTAGE during games because I can now attack with either weapon depending on situation. It's something I could not do unless I modeled.

-Because I'm not clinically insane and don't want to embarass myself, if asked, I'll tell anyone that the motivation behind the very specific combination of axe and the sword wasn't aesthetic, it was gameplay reasons. That explains the word FOR in the sentence that you're wondering about. It's causation. It links the act and the end result together.

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

Now the only room for debate is whether I think modelling for advantage is acceptable or not. Jidmah's reasoning is sound. If you think modeling for advantage is acceptable, the sky and our twisted imagination is the only limit. A word of warning though: I've been playing for 20 years and been going to tournaments for 15 of those years and never has modelling for advantage been allowed. It leads to the disqualification of your units or a points reduction or both.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

That's so incorrect it hurts a little bit.

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

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

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

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

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

Therion wrote:1) I look at the Death Cult Assassin model and notice it's holding power swords. I don't like power swords. What I do like however is a combination of power swords and axes.
2) I then take a miniature, and MODEL it to have an axe and a sword.
3) I agree that it gives me an ADVANTAGE during games because I can now attack with either weapon depending on situation. It's something I could not do unless I modeled.

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


The end.

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

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

Which is clearly ridiculous.

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

rigeld2 wrote:

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

That's so incorrect it hurts a little bit.

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

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

Hi,

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

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

Good work.

rigeld2 wrote:

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

That's so incorrect it hurts a little bit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

insaniak wrote:

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

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

Pretty much.

Joe Mama wrote:

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

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

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

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

Shrikes?

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

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

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

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

I am not trying to, you are.

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

That's so incorrect it hurts a little bit.

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

Jidmah wrote:

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

Pretty much.

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


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

I don't understand the issue.

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

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

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

Jidmah wrote:

insaniak wrote:

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

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

Pretty much.

IdentifyZero wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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

That's so incorrect it hurts a little bit.

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

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

Hi,

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

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

Good work.

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

I'd like an apology.

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

There is. The assumption that it is negative.

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

Good job, internet.

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

Crazyterran wrote:I don't understand the issue.

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

Yes you do. You understand it perfectly.

Therion wrote:

That's so incorrect it hurts a little bit.

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

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

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

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

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

Doesn't show anything worth showing.