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.

Jidmah wrote:Meh, can't you guys like elect a representative?

It's getting hard to answer all of you.

That the argument went from multitude for: 5 against to multitude plus 4 for: 1 against should tell you something.

Therion wrote:

Check your codex for the options available, then model them.

What options? It only says 'Land Raider' and then some pictures.

Then that is not a codex option. That is the words "Land Raider"

jgehunter wrote: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?

IMHO 'the model' means the model in play, which would have to comply with the rules of that model in the codex.

A codex gives a unit a 'power weapon'
The rulebook states a power weapon can be a sword, axe, maul or lance. To see which one it is you would have to look at the model being used, specially what weapon its carrying.

As the codex and rulebook allow 4 options, all 4 are legal options to give to your model.

Jidmah: stating that if a model isn't released by GW with a certain weapon type its not allowed to take that weapon is just nonsense... Whether or not a model is allowed to wield any weapon depends solely on the rules applicable, which would be the codex and the rulebook. I don't care if GW released DCA's with two peashooters, and someone gave them a sword and an axe, if the codex allows is its perfectly legal!

Calling this MFA is the same as saying upgrading a bolt pistol to a meltagun is MFA... Its not a weaponchoice you have to pay for (like the meltagun) but the rules allow it... It may be an oversight in the case of DCA's being able to bring 2 types of weapons, it seems to be a perfectly legal option. I just really don't see how this could be so difficult to grasp

The discussion seems to resolve around DCA's, but the same logic applies to any model that can take 'a power weapon'. In 5th that meant an axe or sword or whatever you fancy, in 6th you get more options to customize the models statline. Seems brilliant to me

Agamemnon2 wrote:[This restriction is impossible to follow in practice, I would argue. Anything can be an advantage, so by that yardstick, everything must be considered to be such. If you want to start splitting hairs, then converting cannot remain legal per the rules.

This is a very true statement.

Clearly, MFA is oftena fact intensive, and inherently subjective question. It's based on the twin virtues of creativity and fairplay.

the problem with limiting a current units weapon options to the actual models produced is that there's a lot of fuzziness with the terms "offical model."

Is the space marine veteran with mace model a Veteran with power maul, Veteran with CCW, or can he also be a sargeant with power maul? What about OOP models? Limited editions? What about kits clearly meant to go together, but aren't packaged togehter (tactical and assault squad sprues?).

Reading the words "range of current Citadel models for that specific unit" into the word "model" is a lot.

Ok i have question about this one. If we allow our DCA's to have an axe and sword. Neither of these have the Specialist Weapon rule. Do you lose your +1 attack for 2 CCW's?

Guys he is dodging the actual question by bringing up Land Raiders. Don't let his tactic work.

Joe Mama wrote:How do I get my GK Crusader with a Category: Power Weapon, Type: Axe?

You don't. Simply as that. When building an army you can only get a GK Crusader with a power weapon.
Both Models for GK Crusaders with powerweapons have swords.
Thus, all GK Crusaders you field will be using the rules for swords.

It doesn't work the other way around.

Slackermagee wrote:That the argument went from multitude for: 5 against to multitude plus 4 for: 1 against should tell you something.

Yes, it sounds awfully like you're essentially just browbeating him. "How dare you hold an opinion that's not shared by everyone!"

grendel083 wrote:

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

They do. They always have. Games Workshop have time and time again released a model then made rules to suit it.

I use crusaders in a small Sisters force. I don't use the official model I use an Adeptus Arbite. Thanks to the new rules it's now armed with a more appropriate power maul. The FAQ even says to change all references of power swords to power weapons. The power weapons are grouped together as they are considered equally balanced, it allows creativity and saves space in the codecs. GW allows 'count as', rebel grots counting as imperial guard as the classic example. They indeed encourage you to change and customise their models. The rules now suit this perfectly.

This is a hobby that allows you to be creative. The rules allow this more than ever now.

The background of the death cults say there are hundreds of different cults, all with different teachings and practises. Now the variety can be represented. I also seem to remember the 2 official models being based on named characters, neither are WYSIWYG (knives on one, not even power knives, and a single sword on the other).

None of those conversions change your army's rules though. Putting axes on a model always described and shown as using swords does.

My group has a very liberal proxying policy, I fully expect (in fact, I know) that TFG's power weapons will all become mauls vs deamons(sup my DC are wounding your bloodthirster on 4s and still striking at I4), and axes vs GK.
This is actually the one aspect of the new rules I don't like

Bikeninja wrote:Ok i have question about this one. If we allow our DCA's to have an axe and sword. Neither of these have the Specialist Weapon rule. Do you lose your +1 attack for 2 CCW's?

Most of the impetus for this thread came from the predication that you would get the +1 attack at either the model's initiative or at initiative 1 with +1 strength.

Polonius wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote:[This restriction is impossible to follow in practice, I would argue. Anything can be an advantage, so by that yardstick, everything must be considered to be such. If you want to start splitting hairs, then converting cannot remain legal per the rules.

This is a very true statement.

Clearly, MFA is oftena fact intensive, and inherently subjective question. It's based on the twin virtues of creativity and fairplay.

the problem with limiting a current units weapon options to the actual models produced is that there's a lot of fuzziness with the terms "offical model."

Is the space marine veteran with mace model a Veteran with power maul, Veteran with CCW, or can he also be a sargeant with power maul? What about OOP models? Limited editions? What about kits clearly meant to go together, but aren't packaged togehter (tactical and assault squad sprues?).

Reading the words "range of current Citadel models for that specific unit" into the word "model" is a lot.

"What a strange game. The only winning move is not to play."

Jidmah wrote:None of those conversions change your army's rules though. Putting axes on a model always described and shown as using swords does.

Neither does having a power weapon. Those include power swords, power axes, power mauls, and special power weapons.

The term is "subcategory".

Jidmah wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:How do I get my GK Crusader with a Category: Power Weapon, Type: Axe?

You don't. Simply as that. When building an army you can only get a GK Crusader with a power weapon.

WHAT IS A POWER WEAPON IN 6TH EDITION?

Agamemnon2 wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:That the argument went from multitude for: 5 against to multitude plus 4 for: 1 against should tell you something.

Yes, it sounds awfully like you're essentially just browbeating him. "How dare you hold an opinion that's not shared by everyone!"

I intended it more as, "Look at the 4 people who came to Jesus, look who's left!"

I mean, c'mon, when an argument has to rest on 'certain GW models are illegal' to survive...

Slackermagee wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:That the argument went from multitude for: 5 against to multitude plus 4 for: 1 against should tell you something.

Yes, it sounds awfully like you're essentially just browbeating him. "How dare you hold an opinion that's not shared by everyone!"

I intended it more as, "Look at the 4 people who came to Jesus, look who's left!"

I mean, c'mon, when an argument has to rest on 'certain GW models are illegal' to survive...

Well. . . he is right.
Of course that does not mean you are wrong.


At this point I have a hard time imagining they are serious; thus my flippant remarks.

Jidmah wrote:

grendel083 wrote:

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

They do. They always have. Games Workshop have time and time again released a model then made rules to suit it.

I use crusaders in a small Sisters force. I don't use the official model I use an Adeptus Arbite. Thanks to the new rules it's now armed with a more appropriate power maul. The FAQ even says to change all references of power swords to power weapons. The power weapons are grouped together as they are considered equally balanced, it allows creativity and saves space in the codecs. GW allows 'count as', rebel grots counting as imperial guard as the classic example. They indeed encourage you to change and customise their models. The rules now suit this perfectly.

This is a hobby that allows you to be creative. The rules allow this more than ever now.

The background of the death cults say there are hundreds of different cults, all with different teachings and practises. Now the variety can be represented. I also seem to remember the 2 official models being based on named characters, neither are WYSIWYG (knives on one, not even power knives, and a single sword on the other).

None of those conversions change your army's rules though. Putting axes on a model always described and shown as using swords does.

Well, THANK GOD the FAQ and codex entry now describes them as having power weapons which in turn now have three possibilities that can be modeled. Are we done yet?

Jidmah wrote:None of those conversions change your army's rules though. Putting axes on a model always described and shown as using swords does.

Well, you're making the assumption that GW meant "look at the model, which should be modeled exactly like a model we've made, and see what it's armed with." It's possible, to be sure. It's equally likely they meant, "look at the model, which you can do up however you'd like, and see what it's armed with."

Still, even if I concede that it's modelling for advantage, is that improper? And if so, why is it unfair?

I suppose the argument you'd make is "you shouldn't gain rules by changing a model," to which I'd respond with "you shouldn't lose options because GW hasn't made that model yet."

I think he is trolling at this point. No person can have the opinion that it's wrong to add in a legal war gear option that is not included with the model, but okay with a model being completely scratch built but not officially released.

Your arguments have no logic, reason, or merit, they are the rumblings of a madman. Please stop using English because I hate understanding what you write,

I think I'm going to have to start quoting Polonius.

You're comparing a weapon change on a model, that doesn't give it an advantage but rather an option, to proxying a Land Raider with a Grot on Tracks?

Are you really trying to make a point?

Joe Mama wrote:

Jidmah wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:How do I get my GK Crusader with a Category: Power Weapon, Type: Axe?

You don't. Simply as that. When building an army you can only get a GK Crusader with a power weapon.

WHAT IS A POWER WEAPON IN 6TH EDITION?

The thing your crusader is wielding.
That's not a sword? Then that's not a crusader.

I see this turning into stats and benefits over modelling, im dreading turning up at the GW and seeing decent stock miniatures with all there weapons cut off and ugly ass replacements plastered all over them ~>~

Bikeninja wrote:Ok i have question about this one. If we allow our DCA's to have an axe and sword. Neither of these have the Specialist Weapon rule. Do you lose your +1 attack for 2 CCW's?

That actually may be right. It certainly would seem like the fair and logical middle ground supported by the ruleset.. In which case, I would argue giving up a bonus attack is worth the tactifcal flexibilty 1 of each provides.

Savageconvoy wrote:I think he is trolling at this point. No person can have the opinion that it's wrong to add in a legal war gear option that is not included with the model, but okay with a model being completely scratch built but not officially released.

Your arguments have no logic, reason, or merit, they are the rumblings of a madman. Please stop using English because I hate understanding what you write,

Destrado wrote:I think I'm going to have to start quoting Polonius.

You're comparing a weapon change on a model, that doesn't give it an advantage but rather an option, to proxying a Land Raider with a Grot on Tracks?

Are you really trying to make a point?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think I'm going to have to start quoting Polonius.

You're comparing a weapon change on a model, that doesn't give it an advantage but rather an option, to proxying a Land Raider with a Grot on Tracks?

Are you really trying to make a point?

You are both assuming that switching powerweapons freely is legal.

That's not what the rule you keep misquoting says.

Savageconvoy wrote:I think he is trolling at this point. No person can have the opinion that it's wrong to add in a legal war gear option that is not included with the model, but okay with a model being completely scratch built but not officially released.

Pretty sure you're right there

One wonders why the hell GW made this change to begin with. They could have just universally nerfed all power weapons into AP3 and be done with it. It would have been preferable to what we have here now.

Jidmah wrote:Except that models have no inherited permission to use weapons they don't come with.

Of course they do. They have permission to use any weapon allowed by their army list entry.

Your narrow interpretation of this leaves Grey Hunters being illegal if they have Plasma guns or flamers, and Tactical squads illegal if they have any heavy weapon other than a missile launcher.

Jidmah wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:

Jidmah wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:How do I get my GK Crusader with a Category: Power Weapon, Type: Axe?

You don't. Simply as that. When building an army you can only get a GK Crusader with a power weapon.

WHAT IS A POWER WEAPON IN 6TH EDITION?

The thing your crusader is wielding.

Good for you! Correct! And that all depends on which legal 'thing' he is wielding (sword, stave, maul, halberd / axe)

That's not a sword? Then that's not a crusader.

I spoke too soon! Why does a crusader, who has an option for the category of "power weapon" have to be modeled with a power sword, which is only one of several options within the category of 'power weapon'? Please try to say something other than "because I say so".

Jidmah wrote:You are both assuming that switching powerweapons freely is legal.

That's not what the rule you keep misquoting says.

You are still wrong.
That rule says to look at the model.
Does the model have an ax?
The model has an ax.

The only problem occurs if that ax is not an option in the codex.

Note:
Power weapon allows for an axe to be used - as an ax.


Appendix 1:
How do you deal with people that magnetize?
Appendix 2:
Or convert?

He's in no way trolling. He's acting as a representative of everyone who likes to play according to the rules and detests modelling for advantage. The only reason he has to post so much is because dozens of Grey Knight players keep making strawmen and misquoting rules and are generally flaming him for being right.