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.
Andilus Greatsword wrote:imho, that's modelling for advantage...
Had my 2nd game last night and we had lots of challenges during it. They were intense and a lot of fun! I love the new mechanic.
Not really. Most people around here run some sort of Successor chapter (Honestly its so they can use either BA, SW or C:SM as thier army.) So while they are using Dante's rules, it is not actully Dante.
And even if it is Dante the rules state to give the models the power weapon you want them to have. So I wouldn't equate it with MFA any more than I would having to rebase a model becasue the base size just got changed or was not perviously stated. Happened to a lot of Tervigons when the model came out and people had them on Carnifax bases (and they were WAY to short).
Pg 53 in the BA Codex. Even though it states that it is a two handed power weapon, the sentence also gives it a name The Executioner's Axe. If the power weapon did not have a specific name, you could model it as a power sword or a power maul or a unique weapon, such like the death cult assassins which only states that it wields 2 power weapons.
Dante Carries a power axe. Modeling differently would be Modeling for Advantage.
Blame GW for their crappy rule set. And since BA has been FAQ'd did not mentioned otherwise, it is still a power axe.
Adam's Motto: Paint, Create, Play, but above all, have fun. -and for something silly below-
"We are the Ultramodrines, And We Shall Fear No Trolls. bear this USR with pride".
Also, how does one apply to be a member of the Ultramodrines? Are harsh trials involved, ones that would test my faith as a wargamer and resolve as a geek?
You must recite every rule of Dakka Dakka. BACKWARDS.
Andilus Greatsword wrote:imho, that's modelling for advantage...
Had my 2nd game last night and we had lots of challenges during it. They were intense and a lot of fun! I love the new mechanic.
Not really. Most people around here run some sort of Successor chapter (Honestly its so they can use either BA, SW or C:SM as thier army.) So while they are using Dante's rules, it is not actully Dante.
And even if it is Dante the rules state to give the models the power weapon you want them to have. So I wouldn't equate it with MFA any more than I would having to rebase a model becasue the base size just got changed or was not perviously stated. Happened to a lot of Tervigons when the model came out and people had them on Carnifax bases (and they were WAY to short).
Pg 53 in the BA Codex. Even though it states that it is a two handed power weapon, the sentence also gives it a name The Executioner's Axe. If the power weapon did not have a specific name, you could model it as a power sword or a power maul or a unique weapon, such like the death cult assassins which only states that it wields 2 power weapons.
Dante Carries a power axe. Modeling differently would be Modeling for Advantage.
Blame GW for their crappy rule set. And since BA has been FAQ'd did not mentioned otherwise, it is still a power axe.
Just because it is called "The Executioners Axe" doesn't mean it is an axe. It is the rules which determine what type of weapon it is, not a fluffy name. If the rules describe it as a power weapon then it could be a sword, axe, maul or lance.
As GW, by making the points values for different power weapons equal in regards to generic power weapons, has effectively stated that all Power Weapons are equal in balance there is no advantage in Dante having a sword over an axe, ruleswise. If he has a sword he strikes earlier (advantage) but at a lower strength (disadvantage) and with worse AP (disadvantage).
If GW had intended Dante's weapon to specifically be a power axe then they would have said so in the FAQ, like they did for Kharn's Gorechild and Typhus' Manreaper.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
I managed to charge a Hive Tyrant with a half a squad of Melta Vets. On the first turn, I challenged the Hive Tyrant, and since he was alone he couldn't refuse. He Roflpwned the Sarge, but the squad managed to pass the LD 6 test to stay in combat.
The squad was eaten in the subsequent turn, but it was one turn I didn't have to deal with the Flyrant eating my tanks.
Just because it is called "The Executioners Axe" doesn't mean it is an axe
This thread should end on that classic line.
Agreed.
Adam's Motto: Paint, Create, Play, but above all, have fun. -and for something silly below-
"We are the Ultramodrines, And We Shall Fear No Trolls. bear this USR with pride".
Also, how does one apply to be a member of the Ultramodrines? Are harsh trials involved, ones that would test my faith as a wargamer and resolve as a geek?
You must recite every rule of Dakka Dakka. BACKWARDS.
But seriously, challenges just wreck CC powerhouses. Abaddon or Kharn marches in with 7 attacks each and have to pulverize some sergeant? What the heck dumb game is this?
Also, good job GW, way to FAQ Kharn to make him hit last with a 3+, T4 power axe. Good god
Twiqbal wrote:But seriously, challenges just wreck CC powerhouses. Abaddon or Kharn marches in with 7 attacks each and have to pulverize some sergeant? What the heck dumb game is this?
Do they? I'd much rather have my CC powerhouse charge in and kill only a Sergeant so the squad stays in combat for my opponent's turn. That way, my beatstick can't be shot at, and I'll mulch the squad in my opponent's CC phase anyways.
I think challenges are, if anything, skewed in favor of tough CC characters, generally speaking.
1st and 2nd Company - 5000pts
86th Ultramar Regiment - 4000pts
Hive Fleet Kraken - 3000pts
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Or you have your sergeant accept the challange. You aren't sending your guy in alone are you?
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
I regularly send in Abaddon or Kharn in alone because I can. Not against 50 Boys, but against 5 or 10 terminators? Abaddon used to be able to murder his way through 250 points of terminators on a charge no problem, but now I'm not so sure.
I guess you're technically correct that you can just use a champ to soak up potential challenges, but then I'm not sure what the point of them is.
Twiqbal wrote:I regularly send in Abaddon or Kharn in alone because I can. Not against 50 Boys, but against 5 or 10 terminators? Abaddon used to be able to murder his way through 250 points of terminators on a charge no problem, but now I'm not so sure.
I guess you're technically correct that you can just use a champ to soak up potential challenges, but then I'm not sure what the point of them is.
I keep a Prime in with my Swarmlord for that reason. With a BS/LS and PE and toxin they can kill almost anything short of Abbadon or other monster (and in that case I'd just use the Swarmlord. He murders units like that.) It gives you some tactical flexability about who to fight and when you want to fight them.
Oh and I do agree with the name is not a rule. My example is that I can make any Counts-As army and model them anyway I want as long as I use the rules. My version of Dante can be a demon with a flaming whip called "The Widow Maker" and as long as he follows the rules of the model (Base, points, size and rules) he is perfectly leagle. At the end of the day it is a Master Cafted Power Weapon.
If GW had intended Dante's weapon to specifically be a power axe then they would have said so in the FAQ, like they did for Kharn's Gorechild and Typhus' Manreaper.
Or they could like...I don't know...call it an axe?
Seriously, some people make me wonder...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/07/23 16:14:00
If GW had intended Dante's weapon to specifically be a power axe then they would have said so in the FAQ, like they did for Kharn's Gorechild and Typhus' Manreaper.
Or they could like...I don't know...call it an axe?
Seriously, some people make me wonder...
But they didn't call it an axe. They called it a Mastercafted Power Weapon. So I am not allowed to use Dante in my Flesh Tearers army? His name is Dante Chapter Master of the Blood Angels. Gabriel Seth is the Chapter Master of the Fleash Tearers, not Dante.
No I can use Dante in my Flesh Tearers. I just have to call him something else.
Names are not rules. The name of his weapon is The Axe Mortalis. Its rules are that it is a Mastercrafted Power Weapon. It can be called whatever you want and you can model it anyway you want. At the end of the day it still uses the rules for either a Power Weapon (WYSISYG) or UPW (And the shape doesn't matter).
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
I believe the BAFAQ clarified that its a Master Crafted Power Axe.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Gloomfang wrote:Names are not rules. The name of his weapon is The Axe Mortalis. Its rules are that it is a Mastercrafted Power Weapon. It can be called whatever you want and you can model it anyway you want. At the end of the day it still uses the rules for either a Power Weapon (WYSISYG) or UPW (And the shape doesn't matter).
Then by your logic I can use Necron Lychguard with Hyperphase Swords, and claim that they are power axes. Why wouldn't I? The Necrons typically swing last at I2 anyway, so I1 won't be any worse.
However, if I were to say that a Hyperphase Sword is an axe, almost everyone would call me either TFG or else just an idiot. And if you honestly want to claim that the Axe Mortalis is anything but an axe, then you are TFG, and have proven GW foolish for giving its players enough credibility to understand that something called an axe, is an axe.
Anyway, here's a wonderful court case that sums up your foolishness nicely. It's used in law school as a reference.
Spoiler:
Canadian Law.
Subject: Is a pony, fortuitously saddled with a feather pillow, a "small bird" within the meaning of the Ontario Small Birds Act?
IN THE SUPREME COURT: REGINA V. OJIBWAY
Blue, J. August, 1965
This is an appeal by the Crown by way of a stated case from a decision of the magistrate acquitting the accused of a charge under the Small Birds Act, R.S.O., 1960, c. 724, s. 2. The facts are not in dispute. Fred Ojibway, an Indian, was riding his pony through Queen's Park on January 2, 1965. Being impoverished, and having been forced to pledge his saddle, he substituted a downy pillow in lieu of the said saddle. On this particular day the accused's misfortune was further heightened by the circumstance of his pony breaking its foreleg. In accord with Indian custom, the accused then shot the pony to relieve it of its awkwardness. The accused was then charged with having breached the Small Birds Act, s. 2 of which states: "2. Anyone maiming, injuring or killing small birds is guilty of an offence and subject to a fine not in excess of two hundred dollars." The learned magistrate acquitted the accused holding, in fact, that he had killed his horse and not a small bird. With respect, I cannot agree.
In light of the definition section my course is quite clear. Section 1 defines "bird" as "a two legged animal covered with feathers." There can be no doubt that this case is covered by this section.
Counsel for the accused made several ingenious arguments to which, in fairness, I must address myself. He submitted that the evidence of the expert clearly concluded that the animal in question was a pony and not a bird, but this is not the issue. We are not interested in whether the animal in question is a bird or not in fact, but whether it is one in law. Statutory interpretation has forced many a horse to eat birdseed for the rest of its life.
Counsel also contended that the neighing noise emitted by the animal could not possibly be produced by a bird. With respect, the sounds emitted by an animal are irrelevant to its nature, for a bird is no less a bird because it is silent.
Counsel for the accused also argued that since there was evidence to show accused had ridden the animal, this pointed to the fact that it could not be a bird but was actually a pony. Obviously, this avoids the issue. The issue is not whether the animal was ridden or not, but whether it was shot or not, for to ride a pony or a bird is of no offence at all. I believe counsel now sees his mistake.
Counsel contends that the iron shoes found on the animal decisively disqualify it from being a bird. I must inform counsel, however, that how an animal dresses is of no consequence to this court.
Counsel relied on the decision in Re Chicadee, where he contends that in similar circumstances the accused was aquitted. However, this is a horse of a different colour. A close reading of that case indicates that the animal in question there was not a small bird, but, in fact, a midget of a much larger species. Therefore, that case is inapplicable to our facts.
Counsel finally submits that the word "small" in the title Small Birds Act refers not to "Birds" but to "Act", making it The Small Act relating to Birds. With respect, counsel did not do his homework very well, for the Large Birds Act, R.S.O. 1960, c. 725 is just as small. If pressed, I need only refer to the Small Loans Act, R.S.O. 1960, c. 727 which is twice as large as the Large Birds Act.
It remains then to state my reason for judgment which, simply, is as follows: Different things may take on the same meaning for different purposes. For the purpose of the Small Birds Act, all two-legged, feather-covered animals are birds. This, of course, does not imply that only two-legged animals qualify, for the legislative intent is to make two legs merely the minimum requirement. The statute therefore contemplated multi-legged animals with feathers as well. Counsel submits that having regard to the purpose of the statute only small animals "naturally covered" with feathers could have been contemplated. However, had this been the intention of the legislature, I am certain that the phrase "naturally covered" would have been expressly inserted just as "Long" was inserted in the Longshoreman's Act.
Therefore, a horse with feathers on its back must be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be a bird, and a fortiori, a pony with feathers on its back is a small bird.
Counsel posed the following rhetorical question: If the pillow had been removed prior to the shooting, would the animal still be a bird? To this let me answer rhetorically: Is a bird any less of a bird without its feathers?
Gloomfang wrote:Names are not rules. The name of his weapon is The Axe Mortalis. Its rules are that it is a Mastercrafted Power Weapon. It can be called whatever you want and you can model it anyway you want. At the end of the day it still uses the rules for either a Power Weapon (WYSISYG) or UPW (And the shape doesn't matter).
Then by your logic I can use Necron Lychguard with Hyperphase Swords, and claim that they are power axes. Why wouldn't I? The Necrons typically swing last at I2 anyway, so I1 won't be any worse.
However, if I were to say that a Hyperphase Sword is an axe, almost everyone would call me either TFG or else just an idiot. And if you honestly want to claim that the Axe Mortalis is anything but an axe, then you are TFG, and have proven GW foolish for giving its players enough credibility to understand that something called an axe, is an axe.
Snide law case aside.
Yes you can put an axe on your Lychguard and have Hyperphase Axes. Just becasue you think it is stupid doesn't change the rules. If you think that is the case then do what the person in the little law case did and have GW AMEND THE LAW.
That said there are many power weapons in 40K. They ALL have diffrent names based on what the army using them calls them. It does not change the fact that they all use the rules for Power Weapons unless they are given a specific rule (Like Power Sword) in the Codex.
So if you look at the rules for Mephiston in the BA Codex, it doesn't say he has a force weapon (and that could be anything just like a power weapon), it says he has a Force Sword. Thats what makes it a Force Sword. Not the fact that the model comes like that. If GW wanted Phase Swords to only be Power Swords they would have put that in the Codex or they would have FAQed it like they did so many other weapons.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/07/23 19:03:54
Gloomfang wrote:The name of his weapon is The Axe Mortalis
I shortened your post to the only part that makes sense.
And jfyi, Lych Guard have been clarified to have Hyperphase Swords. Power Swords.
You know, like Power SWORDS.
Ridiculous, I know. Power Swords turn out to be Power SWORDS. What was GW thinking?!
I don't see the point in arguing with you, tbh. If I was to play against you and you'd try to tell me that the AXE suddenly became a sword / staff, I'd not even bother deploying my forces and rather ask someone else to play with.
Nobody likes TFG.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2012/07/23 19:06:27
Gloomfang wrote:The name of his weapon is The Axe Mortalis
I shortened your post to the only part that makes sense.
And jfyi, Lych Guard have been clarified to have Hyperphase Swords. Power Swords.
You know, like Power SWORDS.
Ridiculous, I know. Power Swords turn out to be Power SWORDS. What was GW thinking?!
I don't see the point in arguing with you, tbh. If I was to play against you and you'd try to tell me that the AXE suddenly became a sword / staff, I'd not even bother deploying my forces and rather ask someone else to play with.
Nobody likes TFG.
Where was it clarified that Lychguard's Hyperphase swords are swords and not generic power weapons, as per their actual rules?
I see no mention in the FAQ.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gloomfang wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
Gloomfang wrote:Names are not rules. The name of his weapon is The Axe Mortalis. Its rules are that it is a Mastercrafted Power Weapon. It can be called whatever you want and you can model it anyway you want. At the end of the day it still uses the rules for either a Power Weapon (WYSISYG) or UPW (And the shape doesn't matter).
Then by your logic I can use Necron Lychguard with Hyperphase Swords, and claim that they are power axes. Why wouldn't I? The Necrons typically swing last at I2 anyway, so I1 won't be any worse.
However, if I were to say that a Hyperphase Sword is an axe, almost everyone would call me either TFG or else just an idiot. And if you honestly want to claim that the Axe Mortalis is anything but an axe, then you are TFG, and have proven GW foolish for giving its players enough credibility to understand that something called an axe, is an axe.
Snide law case aside.
Yes you can put an axe on your Lychguard and have Hyperphase Axes. Just becasue you think it is stupid doesn't change the rules. If you think that is the case then do what the person in the little law case did and have GW AMEND THE LAW.
That said there are many power weapons in 40K. They ALL have diffrent names based on what the army using them calls them. It does not change the fact that they all use the rules for Power Weapons unless they are given a specific rule (Like Power Sword) in the Codex.
So if you look at the rules for Mephiston in the BA Codex, it doesn't say he has a force weapon (and that could be anything just like a power weapon), it says he has a Force Sword. Thats what makes it a Force Sword. Not the fact that the model comes like that. If GW wanted Phase Swords to only be Power Swords they would have put that in the Codex or they would have FAQed it like they did so many other weapons.
Actually Mephiston has a generic power weapon now, as per the FAQ amendment "Var – Power Swords: In the bestiary and army list, replace all references to “power sword” with “power weapon”".
So you can cut off his stock sword and give him an axe if you want. Hell swap his sword for Dante's axe and give Dante Mephiston's sword
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/07/23 19:14:12
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Sigvatr wrote:I shortened your post to the only part that makes sense.
And jfyi, Lych Guard have been clarified to have Hyperphase Swords. Power Swords.
You know, like Power SWORDS.
Ridiculous, I know. Power Swords turn out to be Power SWORDS. What was GW thinking?!
I don't see the point in arguing with you, tbh. If I was to play against you and you'd try to tell me that the AXE suddenly became a sword / staff, I'd not even bother deploying my forces and rather ask someone else to play with.
Nobody likes TFG.
Great news. Where is the link to where they updated the rules for Hyperphase Swords? Its good to have that info. It will save some time with argements. I just looked at the FAQ on GWs website and it doesn't have that clarrification.
And I am not arguing about Dante. I am arguing about my custom built Cain model in my Flesh Tearers army. I use him as the leader of my 2nd company. As the rules stated "Power Weapon" I built him with a big old relic blade I had in my bits box and called it "The Sword of Nod."
Now I have people like you telling me that my Custom built version of a model is WAAC and MFA even though he was built a long time ago. That I have to rip my custom built model and put and Axe on it because a peice of fluff that isn't even attached to my Chapter?
Sigvatr wrote:Digital Necron Codex. It's been quoted ago in the corresponding thread.
And yes, if you read "axe" as "sword", then it's TFG.
So it's only been changed in something which not everyone has access to? Well done GW, great plan there.
To the second part, no. If the rules, the limiting factors of the game, do not state that it is a specific type of weapon (which Dante's rules for his weapon does not) then it is not a specific type of weapon, regardless of its name. You are arguing RAI, not RAW.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Sigvatr wrote:Digital Necron Codex. It's been quoted ago in the corresponding thread.
And yes, if you read "axe" as "sword", then it's TFG.
Then they should have updated the FAQ on the website.
And back on topic.
I think that the problems with challanges is that they have way to many rules complications and cause a lot of arguments. Lord Commisards bow out, but people still need to use thier leadership. MSS and the timing. HoW attacks and the timing of those.
I am sure I will get used to it, but it causes a lot of debates.
-and for something silly below-
~4100
~1660
To the Victor,Go the Spoils of War 
1st and 2nd Company - 5000pts
86th Ultramar Regiment - 4000pts
Hive Fleet Kraken - 3000pts 
5000
2000