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.

Thunderfrog wrote:

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.

Could be completely wrong here... but I thought two different CCWs without the Specialist weapon rule give a bonus attack. I thought the Specialist Weapon rule means you have to have two of the same Specialist Weapon in order to get a bonus attack. For example, one Lightning Claw and a pistol don't give you an extra attack, because the LC is a specialist weapon.

Therion wrote: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, misquoting rules and generally flaming him for being right.

This discussion is in no way Grey Knights who want OP DCA on one side, vs the rest
The rules problem applies to all the models that can have a 'power weapon'

his argument is basically that when a model released by GW has a certain weapon option, where the codex allows several, it is illegal to convert that model to another weapons option. Preposterous

We shouldn't assume that somebody that strongly holds an opinion that you don't agree with is trolling.

A lot of internet (and in person) friction is due to absolutism, or black/white thinking. It's not horribly rare. Basically it's a difficulty in seeing both the good and bad in something. It often manifests in areas of rules, where they prefer a simple "this is good, this is bad" simple rule.

Of course, most problems are far more complex, with most decisions weiging the relative pros and cons.

So yes, it's possible that person could see this and find it just as moraly problematic as modelling a land raider with a grot tank.

Grey Knight player? I'm a Tau player! I hate Grey Knights! I'm just not going to let illogical people try to make up random rules to prevent people from making legal changes to their army.

Oh no guys. My Crisis suits don't have a piece for vectored retro thrusters, targeting arrays, or iridium armor. Guess those aren't legal options.

weapon option, where the codex allows several,

DCA have no weapon options so I'm not sure what you're talking about. They have two power weapons.

Therion wrote:

weapon option, where the codex allows several,

DCA have no weapon options so I'm not sure what you're talking about. They have two power weapons.

stop thinking in the 5th mindset. power weapon doesn't just mean a power sword anymore! 6th clearly states that a power weapon can also be an axe or maul or lance

Therion wrote:

weapon option, where the codex allows several,

DCA have no weapon options so I'm not sure what you're talking about. They have two power weapons.

How do you not know this yet. 'Power Weapon' is a category in 6th edition, containing several options.

Therion wrote:

weapon option, where the codex allows several,

DCA have no weapon options so I'm not sure what you're talking about. They have two power weapons.

That is now a weapon option. That is the point of this thread.
Power weapon is a category now.

It's like people are arguing about two different games
"I want to buy Park Place!"
"No! You landed on a slide, go down a level."

Requiem wrote:

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

No one has proven that putting axes on DCA is actually allowed.

Models made by GW do not have axes. Thus you can not use power axes when simply buying your GK army from GW and build them as intended. Just like battlewagon can not use all his big shootaz at once if you build it as intended. Or a landraider can't target all his weapons at a target not directly in front of it. Or, to name something that's not a vehicle, the special Waaagh! banner nob gw released is way taller than all other nobz, making him poke out behind cover a lot. Is it ok to remove the metal body and replace it with a comparably tiny nob body from the boyz box?
You can change the models to make it better on the tabletop, sure. But where do you draw the line?

The only common ground is to use models a GW builds them.

Jidmah wrote:No one has proven that putting axes on DCA is actually allowed.

GW did that for us.
They state that power weapons modeled as an axe are power axes.

Jidmah wrote:The only common ground is to use models a GW builds them.

And when GW doesn't have models available with the legal wargear options? What then? (Also, didn't we go over this already, how can you be going in a circle already?).

stop thinking in the 5th mindset. power weapon doesn't just mean a power sword anymore!

I'm in the 6th edition mindset when I say that the rules tell you to look at the model when trying to figure out what kind of power weapon you have. You have to do some modelling to have access to DCA with axes, and once you've done that you've gained an advantage.

Whether Polonius agrees that the advantage in question is unfair or not is wholly another discussion. It's a part of the slippery slope problem. How much converting and modelling for advantage is allowed? Is it subjective, meaning it varies from gaming club to gaming club? I'm sure there's a guy out there who is fine with grot size Land Raiders, sponson adjustments and crouching tiger hidden dragon Wraithlords, and you won't find a page reference to stop him.

insaniak wrote:

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.

Well, the difference is that Tacticals explicity have, in their wargear, the option to upgrade not only to a missile launcher, but to other heavy weapons as well.

The argument Jidmah is putting forth is that the moment 6th edition hit, the universe of Citadel miniatures locked into place the various "official" models. So, models with power weapons that differed from the official ranges gained an option through their modelling. They didn't exercise an option through modeling, like a tactical buying a lascannon, but since GW only put out DCAs with swords, any DCA with an ax only gained that advantage because it wasmodelled that way.

It's a very narrow argument, and honestly not a bad one from a technical sense. the problem isn't so much with DCAs, but how that argument translates into every other army.

For example, IIRC, there has never been a space marine sargeant with power axe. Captains and veterans, but not seargants. Likewise IG sgts and mauls and axes.

This is going to be a tough sell for guys that are building those armies.

LIkewise, this makes a model that was completly proper a week ago (say, an IG sarge with power ax) into an improper model. That's a bad result.

Which is why I say, sure, it's modelling for advantage. But it's not unfair and therefore not improper.

At no point in the rules for power weapons are we told to look at the official model. If the model is armed with an axe and the rules state power weapon, then a power axe it is.

Ok. My Tau crisis suit wants a Targetting Array. How do I model this then?

Jidmah wrote:

Requiem wrote:

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

No one has proven that putting axes on DCA is actually allowed.

Models made by GW do not have axes. Thus you can not use power axes when simply buying your GK army from GW and build them as intended. Just like battlewagon can not use all his big shootaz at once if you build it as intended. Or a landraider can't target all his weapons at a target not directly in front of it. Or, to name something that's not a vehicle, the special Waaagh! banner nob gw released is way taller than all other nobz, making him poke out behind cover a lot. Is it ok to remove the metal body and replace it with a comparably tiny nob body from the boyz box?
You can change the models to make it better on the tabletop, sure. But where do you draw the line?

The only common ground is to use models a GW builds them.

Please can you address insaniak's point from the last page?

insaniak wrote: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.

MFA is a house rule.

kirsanth wrote:

Jidmah wrote:No one has proven that putting axes on DCA is actually allowed.

GW did that for us.
They state that power weapons modeled as an axe are power axes.

right, which is why we all agree that it's a legal conversion. Jidmah just thinks its MFA because they didn't have the option prior to the conversion. If nobody ever modelled them that way, no DCA would have that option. Unlike, say, librarians and the various force weapon options.

prior to modelling, all DCAs had swords. After modelling, new options. Thus, MFA.

to which, as I wrote above, I say "so what."

I just want to point out that it says if the model's WARGEAR says it has a Power Weapon, look to the model to see which kind.

It doesn't say 'Kit', or 'Bit' or whatever referring to the Power Weapon choice in question, or the model itself.

Wargear...not bits, Wargear.

It simply has been taken out of context here, which I can't blame those that are arguing for each side. I stand on the majority side, but that is because it is vague and essentially directs my attention to what is clearly stated.

Keywords.

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

Codex pictures show crusaders with alternate weapons from swords.

Jidmah wrote:[The only common ground is to use models a GW builds them.

this is a good example of what I talked about before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma#Black-and-white_thinking

Polonius wrote: Jidmah just thinks its MFA because they didn't have the option prior to the conversion.

They did have the option, it just made no difference. It was never illegal to model them with axes - I just doubt many folk did.

Now it makes a difference, but technically it isn't an advantage since the rules state that things are balanced by points. So there is no advantage in two equally costed legal options.

CleverAntics wrote:I just want to point out that it says if the model's WARGEAR says it has a Power Weapon, look to the model to see which kind.

It doesn't say 'Kit', or 'Bit' or whatever referring to the Power Weapon choice in question, or the model itself.

Wargear...not bits, Wargear.

It simply has been taken out of context here, which I can't blame those that are arguing for each side. I stand on the majority side, but that is because it is vague and essentially directs my attention to what is clearly stated.

Keywords.

Stop. You are making too much sense.

kirsanth wrote:

Polonius wrote: Jidmah just thinks its MFA because they didn't have the option prior to the conversion.

They did have the option, it just made no difference. It was never illegal to model them with axes - I just doubt many folk did.

Mine did, actually. Amusing as it is. Halberds, in fact.

Jidmah wrote:

Requiem wrote:

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

No one has proven that putting axes on DCA is actually allowed.

Models made by GW do not have axes. Thus you can not use power axes when simply buying your GK army from GW and build them as intended. Just like battlewagon can not use all his big shootaz at once if you build it as intended. Or a landraider can't target all his weapons at a target not directly in front of it. Or, to name something that's not a vehicle, the special Waaagh! banner nob gw released is way taller than all other nobz, making him poke out behind cover a lot. Is it ok to remove the metal body and replace it with a comparably tiny nob body from the boyz box?
You can change the models to make it better on the tabletop, sure. But where do you draw the line?

The only common ground is to use models a GW builds them.

GW actively encourages you to convert your models. Just look at the showcase section of your Ork codex, man.

Also, can anyone tell me where I can find this Modelling for Advantage rule? I couldn't find it in the rulebook index.

kirsanth wrote:

Polonius wrote: Jidmah just thinks its MFA because they didn't have the option prior to the conversion.

They did have the option, it just made no difference.
Now it makes a difference, but technically it isn't an advantage since the rules state that things are balanced by points. So there is no advantage in two equally costed legal options.

that's a really good point, in that people were told for three editions that the type of weapon didn't matter, only if it were powered.

The problem isn't that Jidmah is incorect in his assessment (that people gained an advantage by modelling), but that his argument lumps the vast majority of converters in with "counts as" players or even TFGs. And there is a natural recoil, because to most people modelling a tiny land raider, and using a power ax on a SM sargeant are very different moral acts.

Polonius wrote:to which, as I wrote above, I say "so what."

You do see that you're not on the same side as the other pro DCA power axe crowd, don't you? For nearly ten pages they've been denying the fact that they are modelling for advantage. You've actually admitted that it is indeed modelling for advantage but just continued that you don't care and that it should be considered acceptable because you don't find it unfair. I'm very much on the same side as you on this, except that I'd rather not open that can of worms and simply would not allow modeling for advantage at all.

Savageconvoy wrote:Ok. My Tau crisis suit wants a Targetting Array. How do I model this then?

Sorry mate, no Targetting Arrays for you! Wait for GW to release a mini for each codex unit with all the available weapon options!

IMHO giving a model a legal codex option is never MFA. MFA is when you model your mini in such a way that it has a clear (and unfair) advantage over another mini with the same rules. An example of this would be a predator with a 10" autocannon. Giving a unit something the codex allows it to take is NOT MFA, and does not make you TFG

It seems some people can't get over the fact that when 6th hit, a power weapon wasn't just any fancy weapon you like, but became a category for different types of power weapons. Like in the BA codex, all references to 'power swords' are to be replaced with 'power weapons'. This clearly shows GWs intent to have models that could formerly wield a power weapon, now have the option of picking a certain power weapon which has advantages and disadvantages.

tgjensen wrote:Also, can anyone tell me where I can find this Modelling for Advantage rule? I couldn't find it in the rulebook index.

If you go by Jidmah's definition of MFA, then find the page that discusses WYSIWYG, since his MFA and WYSIWYG are exactly the same.