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.

Actually, show me a rule that says you can't model for advantage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:Can we leave the ponies out of it and start a new pony thread?

It's an example of non-citadel mini's and conversions used in tournament play. So it is relevant. But, yes I don't want them to take over this thread either.

Gloomfang wrote:Toddler walking into the freeway here but two honest questions:

1) If you give the DCA one power axe and one power sword wouldn't it loose its +1 for a second CC weapon? One would have the unwieldy rule and to get the second attack both would need the unwieldy rule.

2) Where does the rules specify what a model is at all? I could use WHFB Skaven assasins for DCA if I wanted to. It just has to be a GW miniture and be on the right base.

Ok back to the flame war.

1) Axes, mauls, swords and lances don't have Specialist Weapon (unwieldy just makes you swing at I1 if you use it. SpecWep takes away the +1 att).
2) Models are defined on page 2 as Citadel Miniatures. Beyond that, there is no definition.

pretre wrote:2) Models are defined on page 2 as Citadel Miniatures. Beyond that, there is no definition.

They also refer to the miniatures as representing the particular troop types. So the inference is that they simply assume that people will use the 'correct' model for whatever they are fielding.


Which is exactly, in my opinion, what allows conversions. If we're supposed to be fielding models that actually represent what they are supposed to be, then conversions are not only allowed but in fact required where there is no official model to represent the unit we are using.

And since neither of the official DCA models are legal within their current rules, we would by extension be required to convert them to adequately represent what they are supposed to be.

insaniak wrote:

pretre wrote:2) Models are defined on page 2 as Citadel Miniatures. Beyond that, there is no definition.

They also refer to the miniatures as representing the particular troop types. So the inference is that they simply assume that people will use the 'correct' model for whatever they are fielding.

Which is exactly, in my opinion, what allows conversions. If we're supposed to be fielding models that actually represent what they are supposed to be, then conversions are not only allowed but in fact required where there is no official model to represent the unit we are using.

Agreed. I think that it is definitely indicated that we would need to assemble and convert minis appropriately to use in the game.

And since neither of the official DCA models are legal within their current rules, we would by extension be required to convert them to adequately represent what they are supposed to be.

Yep. I skipped around this by just using Wyches as my base and adding power weapons and removing spikes.

Gloomfang wrote:
2) Where does the rules specify what a model is at all? I could use WHFB Skaven assasins for DCA if I wanted to. It just has to be a GW miniture and be on the right base.

This is an excellent point. Some codecies don't even have GW models for all of their units. So you can't say, that the wording "look at the model" means look at the model kit. It MUST mean look at the assembled model. Therefore, since I must assemble the model to by WYSIWYG I must assemble it with a power weapon. POWER WEAPON! Because that is what the codex says it is armed with. Which power weapon should I assemble it with?

The answer is whichever one you want. If instead the answer was the power sword that comes in the box, then the codex would say "power sword" instead of "power weapon".

Insaniak - one is certainly legal. Ther eis no wysiwyg rule in 40k, outside of eldar and codex requirements to model upgrades.

insaniak wrote:

pretre wrote:2) Models are defined on page 2 as Citadel Miniatures. Beyond that, there is no definition.

They also refer to the miniatures as representing the particular troop types. So the inference is that they simply assume that people will use the 'correct' model for whatever they are fielding.


Which is exactly, in my opinion, what allows conversions. If we're supposed to be fielding models that actually represent what they are supposed to be, then conversions are not only allowed but in fact required where there is no official model to represent the unit we are using.

And since neither of the official DCA models are legal within their current rules, we would by extension be required to convert them to adequately represent what they are supposed to be.

+1

So, let me get this right...

People are saying that you can only use what come with the model ?

So my battlewagon is illegal to use since it has rokkits and is bigger than a regular battle wagon?

I didnt model it for advantage, I modeled it cause I thought it would look cooler bigger and I wanted rokkits, since my codex allows it to have up to 4 and the box set does not come with any.

Danny Internets wrote:It boggles the mind that anyone can actually argue that converting models to show wargear options explicitly permitted by their rulebook and/or codex is illegal. Talk about obstinate. This has got to be the most absurdly stupid thread in the history of YMDC, and that's saying something.

CDA do not explicitly have power axes... DCA are not explicitly allowed to have any form of power weapon permitted by their rulebook.

It is said they have what the model looks like. It is IMPLIED or ASSUMED that we can then choose to model the option however we wish.

It is ambiguous and an assumption which is far from explicit as people keep saying. It is 'legal' due to being ambiguous and when intent is not defined, we take advantage. Saying there is no hole in the rule means there is no need for an FAQ. Since they updated LYCHGUARD to be only swords, obviously the default rule is unclear as it doesn't allow Necron players to modify the stock citadel model and give them *ANY* powerweapon of their choice. This increases the ambiguity as they seem to apply a different standard to the one codex they have updated to differ from the implied rule being quoted of powerweapon = anyweapon.

You can say it works like this because the rule is ambiguous, that is a valid position. Saying the rules explicitly allow you to purchase a poweraxe as an explicit rulebook upgrade or because the rule explicitly allows you to make a choice of every powerweapon can be any power weapon is simply not true.

Dakkafang Dreggrim wrote:So, let me get this right...

People are saying that you can only use what come with the model ?

So my battlewagon is illegal to use since it has rokkits and is bigger than a regular battle wagon?

I didnt model it for advantage, I modeled it cause I thought it would look cooler bigger and I wanted rokkits, since my codex allows it to have up to 4 and the box set does not come with any.

[IMG]

You're clearly MFD(Modelling for disadvantage) here... Look damn awesome though.

EDIT: nkelsch, will you please stop bringing necron lychguard into this? They got updated to be power sword, end of story. Why are people so hung up over the hyperphase sword? I thought necrons have enough firepower to take down a million termies already... GW's inconsistency is another topic altogether.

The DCA argument here is the same as a SM sarge, the rule says "may exchange bolt pistol/CCW for a power weapon", does not say what he can bring, so you could give him a spear and say that it's a power spear. Similarly, DCA codex entry says they have two undefined power weapons, so they should be allowed to use any of the four. We simply cannot go by the "what's in the kit" rule, because by that logic, my archon can only use huskblade and soultrap despite the codex saying I have the options for EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE(bit of a hyperbole there, but almost everything non-coven DE).

pretre wrote:1) Axes, mauls, swords and lances don't have unwieldy.
2) Models are defined on page 2 as Citadel Miniatures. Beyond that, there is no definition.

Uhmm.. Yes power axes are +1S, AP2 and Unwieldy.

Dakkafang Dreggrim wrote:So, let me get this right...

People are saying that you can only use what come with the model ?

So my battlewagon is illegal to use since it has rokkits and is bigger than a regular battle wagon?

I didnt model it for advantage, I modeled it cause I thought it would look cooler bigger and I wanted rokkits, since my codex allows it to have up to 4 and the box set does not come with any.

Your battlewagon is illegal because it is oversized. I have seen oversized battlewagons explicitly banned from multiple tourneys including 'ard boyz. I have also seen where they ask the player to play as if it was the size of the stock model or ask them to show up with a stock model.

This model falls under 'rule of cool'. If you want to use it, you need opponent permission, if they have a problem with the advantage of a larger BW as you try to block LOS to stuff behind it or extend your KFF bubble, then they may complain and have legitimate reasons. Cooler your model looks, the less people complain, but no matter how you slice it, every time that BW hits the table it is opponents permission if they wish to play you or not. If you are doing it for abusive reasons, they may refuse.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Insaniak - one is certainly legal. Ther eis no wysiwyg rule in 40k, outside of eldar and codex requirements to model upgrades.

So which one are you seeing as legal?

Gloomfang wrote:

pretre wrote:1) Axes, mauls, swords and lances don't have unwieldy.
2) Models are defined on page 2 as Citadel Miniatures. Beyond that, there is no definition.

Uhmm.. Yes power axes are +1S, AP2 and Unwieldy.

Oh wait, he's confusing specialist weapon and unwieldy and I went right along with him.

The answer is that they don't have specialist weapon. I will edit my first response.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dakkafang Dreggrim wrote:So, let me get this right...

People are saying that you can only use what come with the model ?

So my battlewagon is illegal to use since it has rokkits and is bigger than a regular battle wagon?

I didnt model it for advantage, I modeled it cause I thought it would look cooler bigger and I wanted rokkits, since my codex allows it to have up to 4 and the box set does not come with any.

It doesn't look bigger than a normal battlewagon. Which dimension is it bigger in?

nkelsch wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:It boggles the mind that anyone can actually argue that converting models to show wargear options explicitly permitted by their rulebook and/or codex is illegal. Talk about obstinate. This has got to be the most absurdly stupid thread in the history of YMDC, and that's saying something.

CDA do not explicitly have power axes... DCA are not explicitly allowed to have any form of power weapon permitted by their rulebook.

It is said they have what the model looks like. It is IMPLIED or ASSUMED that we can then choose to model the option however we wish.

this.

There is no rule saying you can change your model to look like whatever you want.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:It boggles the mind that anyone can actually argue that converting models to show wargear options explicitly permitted by their rulebook and/or codex is illegal. Talk about obstinate. This has got to be the most absurdly stupid thread in the history of YMDC, and that's saying something.

CDA do not explicitly have power axes... DCA are not explicitly allowed to have any form of power weapon permitted by their rulebook.

It is said they have what the model looks like. It is IMPLIED or ASSUMED that we can then choose to model the option however we wish.

this.

There is no rule saying you can change your model to look like whatever you want.

There is also no rule saying that you cannot change your model to look like whatever you want.

insaniak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Insaniak - one is certainly legal. Ther eis no wysiwyg rule in 40k, outside of eldar and codex requirements to model upgrades.

So which one are you seeing as legal?

the one with a power weapon. It may have two listed as wargear, but there is no requirement for both to be shown


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:It boggles the mind that anyone can actually argue that converting models to show wargear options explicitly permitted by their rulebook and/or codex is illegal. Talk about obstinate. This has got to be the most absurdly stupid thread in the history of YMDC, and that's saying something.

CDA do not explicitly have power axes... DCA are not explicitly allowed to have any form of power weapon permitted by their rulebook.

It is said they have what the model looks like. It is IMPLIED or ASSUMED that we can then choose to model the option however we wish.

this.

There is no rule saying you can change your model to look like whatever you want.

There is also no rule saying that you cannot change your model to look like whatever you want.

Rules say what you can do. Otherwise I win on a 2+

pretre wrote:

Gloomfang wrote:

pretre wrote:1) Axes, mauls, swords and lances don't have unwieldy.
2) Models are defined on page 2 as Citadel Miniatures. Beyond that, there is no definition.

Uhmm.. Yes power axes are +1S, AP2 and Unwieldy.

Oh wait, he's confusing specialist weapon and unwieldy and I went right along with him.

The answer is that they don't have specialist weapon. I will edit my first response.

Thanks. All of this makes me glad Nids don't have power weapons.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

There is also no rule saying that you cannot change your model to look like whatever you want.

Rules say what you can do. Otherwise I win on a 2+

Not all rules are represented. Rules for assembly and conversion are clearly not and are part of the game. Some things are assumed to be part of the game. But you knew I was going to say this.

nkelsch wrote:CDA do not explicitly have power axes... DCA are not explicitly allowed to have any form of power weapon permitted by their rulebook.

It is said they have what the model looks like.

So, again, looking at the models (one with only a single power weapon, and one with none at all) which power weapons do they have?

Since they updated LYCHGUARD to be only swords, obviously the default rule is unclear as it doesn't allow Necron players to modify the stock citadel model and give them *ANY* powerweapon of their choice.

You keep bringing this up, but it was debunked pages ago. All that the Lychguard example proves is that they intended for the Lychguards' swords to be swords. The very fact that so many other units specifically had 'power sword' changed to 'power weapon' in the new FAQs says that they didn't intend the Lychguard to serve as any sort of game-wide example.

nosferatu1001 wrote:the one with a power weapon. It may have two listed as wargear, but there is no requirement for both to be shown

So without converting it, how are you going to specify what the second power weapon is?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dakkafang Dreggrim wrote:... But i dont understand how the whole changed the weapons thing may be illegal.

It's not.

The whole argument over the legality of conversions to swap weapons is one that you'll only ever see on the internet. In actual practice, nobody is ever going to disallow a model because you swapped a weapon for some other weapon that the model is legally allowed to have... unless it's a DCA, apparently.

nkelsch wrote:

Dakkafang Dreggrim wrote:So, let me get this right...

People are saying that you can only use what come with the model ?

So my battlewagon is illegal to use since it has rokkits and is bigger than a regular battle wagon?

I didnt model it for advantage, I modeled it cause I thought it would look cooler bigger and I wanted rokkits, since my codex allows it to have up to 4 and the box set does not come with any.

Your battlewagon is illegal because it is oversized. I have seen oversized battlewagons explicitly banned from multiple tourneys including 'ard boyz. I have also seen where they ask the player to play as if it was the size of the stock model or ask them to show up with a stock model.

This model falls under 'rule of cool'. If you want to use it, you need opponent permission, if they have a problem with the advantage of a larger BW as you try to block LOS to stuff behind it or extend your KFF bubble, then they may complain and have legitimate reasons. Cooler your model looks, the less people complain, but no matter how you slice it, every time that BW hits the table it is opponents permission if they wish to play you or not. If you are doing it for abusive reasons, they may refuse.

**Edit** I see now where the conversion was, it's an extra fat wagon that's really 2 wagons side by side and glued together. Nice conversion. I can see why some people would cry modeling for advantage because it widens the AV14 front arc and shrinks the AV12 side arcs, extends the charge range of units inside, and extends the area of LOS denial behind the wagon. Those are circumstances that can be called modeling for advantages.

Customizing a model to make a model that there is no model for isn't modeling to advantage, people need to chill out with legal conversions. I can't believe this thread went 8 pages over converting models to a piece of wargear they can legally purchase. By the same logic that DCA can't take power axes my blood angles no longer have the following wargear options because there is no model with it.

Sanguinary priest in terminator armor (There is only 1 sanguinary priest model, and all he has is a bolt pistol)
Also by the same logic it's illegal to give a sanguinary priest
A jump pack
A bike
A Power weapon
A Power fist
A lighting claw
Melta bombs
A combi bolter
A combi melta
A combi flamer
A combi plasma
A storm bolter
An infernus pistol
A plasma pistol

All those options are now illegal because there is only 1 sculpt for a sanguinary priest, and all he has is a bolt pistol.

Oh wow. Yeah, that's not going to fly in most places. That significantly changes the LOS profile of the model. If that was mine, I'd have a spare BW in my bag just in case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

schadenfreude wrote:All those options are now illegal because there is only 1 sculpt for a sanguinary priest, and all he has is a bolt pistol.

That is the basic contention. sigh.

Converting has been part of this hobby for a long time and is clearly still part of the hobby. Internet arguments aren't going to change that. I will continue to check with my TOs and opponents and don't anticipate anyone freaking out over my DCA (which I finished painting and converting this morning. Yay!).

Ha ha, See some people cant tell its a conversion, so I guess I did a good job lol.

Sorry, back on topic...

So the end resutlt same as any conversion is: ask your TO.

As I have said about 10000 times throughout the thread, but apparently people ignored: some conversions are necessary if you want to field X model with Y upgrade, and while there arent any rules allowing it it is unusual for people to have anything to say against it.

Does that mean you can model anything you like? Of course! It is a hobby AS WELL as a game! However when your conversion starts affecting the game, then people may have issues in game.

Apparently stating that makes you the devil. Shucks.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So the end resutlt same as any conversion is: ask your TO.

As I have said about 10000 times throughout the thread, but apparently people ignored: some conversions are necessary if you want to field X model with Y upgrade, and while there arent any rules allowing it it is unusual for people to have anything to say against it.

Does that mean you can model anything you like? Of course! It is a hobby AS WELL as a game! However when your conversion starts affecting the game, then people may have issues in game.

Apparently stating that makes you the devil. Shucks.

No, I agree that asking your TO/opponent about conversions is the right thing to do. What I don't agree with is that converting is somehow against the rules...

nosferatu1001 wrote:As I have said about 10000 times throughout the thread, but apparently people ignored: some conversions are necessary if you want to field X model with Y upgrade, and while there arent any rules allowing it it is unusual for people to have anything to say against it.

I would suggest that the reason people have ignored it is that you never said it. You've just spent 6 or 7 pages stating that conversions are illegal.

I think he said it once or twice a couple pages back. It got lost in all the 'no rules basis for conversions' talk though...

It was when he was responding to the combi-flamer to combi-melta question.