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.

kirsanth wrote:

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.

So the issue is that people don't want to let people use the models they modeled even though the codex says "Power Weapon" and not "Power Sword"?

I... really?

They get +1 S and AP2 for axes, for example, but they strike at I1. Kill them before they hit you!

If you are worried about your Termies that bad, give them Lightning Claws and laugh at their attempts to kill you with axes. Really.

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.

For 99% of entries I would agree with you, but do consider the DCA.

If it has all swords or all axes that would be one thing, as it would either have 4 AP3 Init 6 attacks on the charge or it would have 4 AP2 Init 1 attacks on the charge. However, modeling both allows you to be able to decide when charging whether or not to use 4 of either attacks while only one of each weapon is modeled. Usually this sort of options in tactics or attack modes is accompanied by the purchase of extra wargear. Since GW does not make attacks per weapon modeled.. (IE, the above DCA doesn't have 2 AP3 Init 6 and 2 AP2 Init 1 attacks) some find it hard to believe it realistic or fair that a model with only 1 of a given weapon equipped can make 4 attacks with it.

I fall into that camp, but I also realize this isn't GW"s first oversight and it won't be their last. It's lame in my eyes but certainly not cheating. Nor would I thing to call people modeling this way a cheater.. nor would I consider them "obtuse" for thinking it's fine or disagreeing with me.

Jidmah wrote:If models exists for a unit, and it does not have the option for one of the power-weapons, it can not use them.

This isn't in the rules. You just made this up. In 6th, if you see the phrase "power weapon" in a codex then what kind of "power weapon" is it? What's your answer to this question? Please answer and then read on...


You are pretending there needs to be options for the type of 'power weapon' but you ignore that in 6th edition, the phrase 'power weapon' doesn't tell you the type. Looking at the model on the table tells you the type of power weapon.

Jidmah wrote:

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?

Well yes - because of WYSIWYG. How else am I supposed to model boneswords?
Remember,

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

Warriors still don't come with Boneswords or Lashwhips, Shrikes still don't exist, neither does the Harpy...

Thunderfrog wrote:For 99% of entries I would agree with you, but do consider the DCA.

DCA are still worse in this edition than in 5th, even with power axes. So what is there to consider? You act like the 'buff' makes them too good, when in reality they are worse than before.

insaniak wrote:

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...

The game rules for the model do not change by changing the model.

It's still a basic marine that gets a flamer for +5, a melta for +10 and a plasma gun for +15. Numbers made up. All those are fine in the rules, you can cut off that arm as often as you want - or magnetize it. It didn't get better or worse because of your modeling, but because of your army choice.

Only by converting or scratch building you are ever allowed to use axes on a DCA. You are not told to pick any of the power weapons and then follow WYSIWYG. If it did that, we wouldn't be having an argument. You are told to use the weapon on the model, thus you get an advantage by modeling, not by army choice.

Well, lots of units gain advantages when rules changes come about.

When 5th edition came around, Deffrollas could now hit vehicles with d6 S10 hits! That was a huge buff, with no added cost or downside.

Rules change around codices. Did GW intend DCA to gain their choice of power weapon? Probably not. Is it unprecedented, gamebreaking, or illogical? Nope.

I am now wondering how some people manage to put any model together without getting any advantage out of it.
Then I am wondering what kind of person insisted that this was done.
Those models must look AWFUL.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jidmah wrote:Only by converting or scratch building you are ever allowed to use axes on a DCA.

Wait. So its ok if I convert the axe?
Why is it not converting to cut the arm off of the existing model and CONVERT it to use an axe?
You entirely lost me with that backtracking.

Joe Mama wrote:

Jidmah wrote:If models exists for a unit, and it does not have the option for one of the power-weapons, it can not use them.

This isn't in the rules. You just made this up. In 6th, if you see the phrase "power weapon" in a codex then what kind of "power weapon" is it? What's your answer to this question? Please answer and then read on...

I look at the model. So I get a Citadel Crusader or a Citadel Death Cult Assassin. All variants of them are using swords.

Jidmah wrote:I look at the model. So I get a Citadel Crusader or a Citadel Death Cult Assassin.

That is not the model you are supposed to look at.
The one with the axe is the one we are talking about.

Not be nitpicky...

But the rule says "look at the model."

What model?

Even for DCAs, there are two models.

Isn't that strong evidence that they mean, "the actual model in play," and not "the official model?"

Space marine captains alone have to have two dozen official models.

If I take a space marine librarian, do I look at the model on the website? Or the one on the table?

Jidmah wrote:The game rules for the model do not change by changing the model.

With the case of power weapons, the new rulebook explictly says they DO. "Power Weapon" is a category, and you see which specific type of power weapon from that category is found on the model on the table. That's what the rulebook says. So if your model comes with a power weapon standard, or you have to buy one, the type depends on what it looks like. Do you disagree?

There's modeling for advantage and modeling a wargear entry.

Christ, why is this such a difficult thing to grasp:

all of your firewarriors greenstuffed into kneeling positions -> MFA

Making a power weapon into either a sword, axe, or maul (two of the previous in terms of DCA) -> modeling an option.

MFA implies douchebaggery is afoot. Given that the rules give, with open arms, this option to you; given that DCA love death and dealing death and murdering things; I cannot fathom how you think someone taking a DCA and adding an axe would be MFA.

Jidmah wrote:I look at the model. So I get a Citadel Crusader or a Citadel Death Cult Assassin. All variants of them are using swords.

The model on the table? According to this thread the won't be using swords.

If you're referencing GW's pictures - show me a current warrior with boneswords before they were released.

So basically the thread boils down to two sides.

One side wants to allow the swapping of power weapons as it says you can in the rules as long as the model represents the weapon.

The other side a bunch of TFGs that don't want to change their mind or admit they are wrong.

And Im only saying that because you have offered no logical reason on why they can't do it other than you don't like it.

If you are worried about your Termies that bad

That's a problem with these threads. There are a few people who are trying to find the correct interpretation of the rules just for the sake of truth, purity of the game system, helping other people out or whatever. Then there are people with agendas -- People who want to do something dodgy but want to get some validation from atleast a few peers on the internet before doing so. Sometimes in the argument against them are their very opponents -- People who have an agenda on that advantage being disallowed.

The only 40K army that I play now has nothing but masses of flyers and infantry models with a 3+ save and mostly worse so all I've said is from an objective view.

That is not the model you are supposed to check.

If you're implying that he should check the custom miniature you modeled to have an axe and gained an advantage because of it I'm curious to know what your point is. Likewise, many of you constantly keep ignoring Jidmah's questions regarding the slippery slope. Where does it end? Is there an extent to modelling for advantage that you don't allow? You allow only slight modeling for advantage? More specifically, do you only allow modeling for advantage when you do it yourself?

Polonius wrote:Not be nitpicky...

But the rule says "look at the model."

What model?

Even for DCAs, there are two models.

Also, even if there is only one official model, what if the official model isn't around? What if you only have a picture? That doesn't count, because a picture is not the thing in the picture.

kirsanth wrote:I am now wondering how some people manage to put any model together without getting any advantage out of it.
Then I am wondering what kind of person insisted that this was done.
Those models must look AWFUL.

It's pretty easy. They come with a manual. Made by Citadel.

Jidmah wrote:Only by converting or scratch building you are ever allowed to use axes on a DCA.

Wait. So its ok if I convert the axe?
Why is it not converting to cut the arm off of the existing model and CONVERT it to use an axe?
You entirely lost me with that backtracking.

You are trolling, right?

If you are not converting or scratchbuilding, you can't get an axe.
So if you're converting or scratchbuilding to get an axe, you are modeling for advantage.

Unlike tervigons, TWC or whatever other stuff people keep coughing up. You can get those because they are in your codex, not because GW told you that your marines have special rules if they look like riding on wolves.

For me this is just turning into an "Exalt Polonius" thread.

I'm sorry Jidmah, but I just can't agree with you even while I understand you. Would you play someone who uses wyches as Death Cult models? I'm just curious.

Creating a model that represents the wargear and weaponry is part of the rules, not an advantage - it is actually required.

If you are choosing things because they are advantageous, you are being smart, not a cheater.

Therion, do you let your opponent choose your wargear/weapons and then model your army? Otherwise, you are literally modeling to get an advantage.

Jidmah wrote:Unlike tervigons, TWC or whatever other stuff people keep coughing up. You can get those because they are in your codex, not because GW told you that your marines have special rules if they look like riding on wolves.

So a codex that has power weapons cannot equip a specific version of a power weapon?

How about the SoB FAQ? It says to change references to a 'Power Sword' to 'Power Weapon'. The DCA have a Power Sword.

If it meant for models that had bits according to the appropriate Power Weapon type, why change that phrase then? DCA have Power Swords, according by definition, yet they change it to 'Power Weapon' in ALL references within the Codex.

Why not just keep it 'Power Sword' then if we're going off the assumption that this rule pertains to bits exclusive to particular kits?

Perhaps I'm missing something, but to me the wording is almost too straightforward; and I'll treat it as such. If they meant for the kits with the specific bits to have this advantage, I would have imagined they would have directly said so; since they haven't, I assume all references of 'Power Weapon' means I can select from the general/common selection of Power Weapons wherever Power 'Insert Type Here' is provided.

Yes, it can be giving advantages, such as allowing Lychguard to take 'Hyperphase Axes' according by definition, but until it is FAQ'd, or said otherwise by the BRB...I'll treat it as it says, and it doesn't mention 'bitz' or anything of the sort.

My 2 cents.

Would you play someone who uses wyches as Death Cult models

You can use blobs of green stuff for all I care but when combat starts your blobs of green stuff count as Death Cult Assassins with two power swords each.

Destrado wrote:For me this is just turning into an "Exalt Polonius" thread.

You too?

I still don't see a rules problem with modelling anything with a power weapon as you see fit.

I can see the argument being made now.

basically, power weapons are WYSIWYG. The argument is that any attempt to broaden the range of options with conversion is adding an option (because uniquely for power weapons model choice is also rules choice).

So, because DCAs have never had a model with axes, any conversion with axes, while strictly legal, are only possible due to modelling, and not purely codex rules.

Most people are shrugging their shoulders and going, "cool, new options." This seems to show that while it is gaining a new advantage simply because of modelling, the rules seem very ok with it, given the long history of conversions.

Therion wrote: Is there an extent to modelling for advantage that you don't allow? You allow only slight modeling for advantage?

Doing WYSIWYG to properly show the legal wargear is not technically *scare quotes* "modeling for advantage." It is using the rules and showing your opponent what the model is legally equipped with. If my dude has a gun, you look to see which one. If my dude has a meltagun, well you are going to see the melta gun. If he has a kind of power weapon, you look at the model to see which kind, as the rules state. To argue otherwise to argue for the broadest, most absurd definition of "modeling for advantage" that one could possible make.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CleverAntics wrote:How about the SoB FAQ? It says to change references to a 'Power Sword' to 'Power Weapon'. The DCA have a Power Sword.

Nope. DCA have power weapons (at least in the GK dex they do).

Therion wrote:
You can use blobs of green stuff for all I care but when combat starts your blobs of green stuff count as Death Cult Assassins with two power swords each.

Because?

(@ kirsanth: guess he's not a lawyer for nothing )

kirsanth wrote:Creating a model that represents the wargear and weaponry is part of the rules, not an advantage - it is actually required.

If you are choosing things because they are advantageous, you are being smart, not a cheater.

Therion, do you let your opponent choose your wargear/weapons and then model your army? Otherwise, you are literally modeling to get an advantage.

Quoted For Truth!

I am shocked and awed and amazed and a little sad that people don't seem to understand this.

Could the people that are arguing against this answer something, when it says to reference THE model which one do I have to reference if there is more than 1 official model, like in the case of DCA?

Therion wrote:
People who want to do something dodgy but want to get some validation from atleast a few peers on the internet before doing so. Sometimes in the argument against them are their very opponents -- People who have an agenda on that advantage being disallowed.

Have you read either the BYB or the new FAQs because your statement right there leads me to believe you have done neither. If, IF IF IF IF IF, the 'power sword' entry for the DCA is FAQ'd to a 'power weapon' or if it started as a 'power weapon' to begin with, you can make it a sword/maul/axe and that's what is represented on the table.

If you want to be AP4 and +2 strength with no two weapon bonus, I would love to see that (with my sword wielding sergeant). If you want to be S+1 and AP2 at I1, again, I would love to see that (as would my sword wielding sergeant).

That's the RAW currently. You can think that someone who chooses an axe over a sword is MFA or TFG, step back for a sec and think about what that's actually doing. If its a character, he can be challenged and executed prior to his initiative step. If it isn't a character, said unit got a buff in terms of choices in combat (until power axes and power swords are FAQ'd as not being usable together).