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.

Gloomfang wrote: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.

In 5th edition yes, however, in 6th ed, if you have two one-handed cc weapons you get the bonus attack (unless one of the weapons has the specialist rule).

insaniak wrote:

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.

Incorrect, and not like you Insaniak.

I mentioned it MORE than once.

I have spent the last few pages saying there are no rules supporing conversions. I asked people to provide rules and was insulted and poked fun at repeatedly.

OOOOps I was totally wrong about the battlewagon, and see how it's oversized now in that it's more wide than it's intended to be. That's a really nice conversion that's going to model for both advantage and disadvantage, with the primary advantage that it's front arc is wider and it's side arcs are smaller.

Going back to edit my post on the wagon. The wagon was an irrelevent tangent to the point I was trying to make. There are lot of GW models that there is no official GW model for (Like every option possible for a sanguinary priest) that require conversions. In 6th ed GW gave DCA new weapon options before the new models came out (if they are ever going to come out, see Sanguinary priests for my point) Conversions are often a necessary part of the game.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I have spent the last few pages saying there are no rules supporing conversions. I asked people to provide rules and was insulted and poked fun at repeatedly.

Mostly because your contention is silly. There are also no rules for a number of things that are central to the playing of Warhammer 40,000 but they keep getting brushed past with 'Citadel provides instructions for how to assemble' or 'Citadel Mini means unmodified Citadel mini' .

The fact is that there are no rules for assembling or converting your minis in the rules section of the rulebook.

According to your posts regarding conversions, this means that it is against the rules to do these things.

I look forward to the unassembled, unconverted, unpainted tournament armies.

Good example is a looted wagon. There is no model for one, they have to be convereted.

So are looted wagon not allowed at all ? Since they are all conversions.

Saying that a weapon swap for a simple conversion is not allowed seems very gity and weedy.

Are people that bent on winning they will take the hobby out of the game ?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Incorrect, and not like you Insaniak.

I mentioned it MORE than once.

Then either it was well concealed, or my coffee was seriously not working this morning, because I couldn't find it.

I have spent the last few pages saying there are no rules supporing conversions. I asked people to provide rules and was insulted and poked fun at repeatedly.

Because, as I pointed out back on page 2 or 3, it's a silly argument that serves no practical purpose.

While the whole point of this board is to discuss the rules, the point of that is to foster an understanding of the rules for the purposes of playing a game. Sitting there insisting that conversions are not allowed by the rules when for all practical intents and purposes they are not only allowed but often required is beyond pointless, and is exactly the sort of argument that causes people to decide that forums like this just aren't worth their time.

We all know that regardless of what the rules say, conversions are an accepted part of the game, if only to allow people to field models with allowed equipment that does not come standard with the model. So insisting that conversions aren't actually allowed is not going to convince anyone that they can't swap the weapons on the DCA. It's just not a sustainable argument, no matter how grounded you may think it is in the RAW.

I have read through this entire mess and I honestly think that the best solution is to ask your opponent. I have had some silly conversions pulled out on me in tournaments and was caught off guard and it DID impact the game. Then again I have seen beautifully clear conversions that made the game more aesthetically pleasing. In any case you need to be up front and I think it will be settled on a case by case basis, there can be know blanket policy on this one fellas.

Personally I would be more OK with it if they modeled them to have one type or another but I think one of two types each is where it becomes shady. Ask yourself are you gaining an advantage you otherwise would not have? Clearly with one of each you are, you are gaining utility that the unit isn't specifically given.

Otherwise if people want to play shady so can I, I'll call a judge over and unless they were cleared or have CM deathcult models with CM axes from another kit (SW or chaos Terms for example) then fine. But guardsmen or wyches with carved plastic weapons are going to get the boot no matter how 'Cool' they are.

I think we can all find a compromise on this one.

Sigh. You read the whole thread and THAT was your conclusion?

Redbeard wrote:

helium42 wrote:To me if a unit's entry says it has a power weapon, or power weapons, you should be able to model it with sword, axe, or maul as you see fit.

That's fine, but what rules support your assertion? None.

The rules governing what a power weapon is support my assertion. The DCA are equipped with two power weapons. Their kit does not include all of the options available, so the person assembling/painting the model may convert it to cover its available options. Not too hard to understand.

Redbeard wrote:

helium42 wrote:@DakotaBlue: If miniatures are meant to be played with only with the wargear they come with, then many models will never be able to use potential wargear options since the kits don't come with them. The entry for DCA says that they have two power weapons, giving them the option to use whichever option that they are modelled with. To say that they can not be converted to use an option not included in the kit would be akin to saying that any kit that does not come with every wargear option is limited in the same way.

This is a logical fallacy. All dogs are mammals, not all mammals are dogs.

You may modify any model to give it an option it is legally allowed to take. You may not modify a model if the modification alone provides an advantage.

In the case of power weapons, it is not about giving the model a power weapon, it is altering what weapon it has. This gives you an advantage obtained solely through modeling, and is therefore not allowed.

There are different options for power weapons. DCA only come with one option. Their entry allows them other options, not included in the kit. To convert them to allow for the other options shouldn't be an issue. I don't see what the problem is in your mind.

pretre wrote:Sigh. You read the whole thread and THAT was your conclusion?

Wow, being facetious really is your one trick isn't it? To bad you never provide any rules instead eh?

Red Corsair wrote:

pretre wrote:Sigh. You read the whole thread and THAT was your conclusion?

Wow, being facetious really is your one trick isn't it? To bad you never provide any rules instead eh?

Yes, obviously it is.

Or you could have read all the posts that show that conversion is part of the game and that the rules allow models to determine their power weapon type from the model. Note the lack of specificity for 'original citadel mini' in said rules.

There are no rules to prevent conversion and it is in fact encouraged by GW in the hobby section and by the products they sell. As well, it is clear from the FAQs where they removed specificity that they intended power weapon to be a broad category that allows for customization.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As well, I took exception with being labelled as shady simply because I converted the models according to the rules. So did you get hit with the sarcasm hose? Yes. Suck it up and maybe try not to ascribe intentions to others.

pretre wrote:

Red Corsair wrote:

pretre wrote:Sigh. You read the whole thread and THAT was your conclusion?

Wow, being facetious really is your one trick isn't it? To bad you never provide any rules instead eh?

Yes, obviously it is.

Or you could have read all the posts that show that conversion is part of the game and that the rules allow models to determine their power weapon type from the model. Note the lack of specificity for 'original citadel mini' in said rules.

There are no rules to prevent conversion and it is in fact encouraged by GW in the hobby section and by the products they sell. As well, it is clear from the FAQs where they removed specificity that they intended power weapon to be a broad category that allows for customization.

Yes, and note in this thread that you have not fallowed it's tenets and have yet to provide a rule in this PERMISSIVE set, you don't need a rule to prevent conversion you need a rule ALLOWING it. Hobby section is not rules. Yes, I have fallowed this thread and yes in a RAW vacuum this has stupid repercussions as does allowing for silly conversions.

So, it can be concluded that neither side is willing to relent and thus this matter is best settled on a case by case basis.

Or would you rather continue targeting the poster and not the topic for another 9 pages while never provided an actual rule to prove your claim? Or even a new angle or approach for that matter.

This is YMDC, it's all about RAW. There are tenets, abide by them and stop flaming new comers. Or did you have something new and constructive to post?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:
As well, I took exception with being labelled as shady simply because I converted the models according to the rules. So did you get hit with the sarcasm hose? Yes. Suck it up and maybe try not to ascribe intentions to others.

You said it not me. If gaining an advantage through modelling or converting is MFA, and if MFA is shady, then guess what, you are engaging in a shady maneuver. Cry all you like it won't change the facts.

The permissive rule set thing is a red herring. It works great for playing the game but hardly for assembling, converting and painting.

My dca were made with wyches with a variety of weapons well before 6th gave them an advantage. So apparently I am not only MFA but also able to see the future.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for raw, post a single rule which allows you (in this permissive rule set) to assemble, paint or convert your minis.

You'll find your side has no rules to present either.

Red Corsair wrote:This is YMDC, it's all about RAW.

Approximately half of that statement is correct.


YMDC has plenty of room for discussion veering away from the RAW, particularly in cases like this where what is being put forward as the RAW is absurd.

Ok let's tone down the hostility there.

RAW power weapons are decided based on how they are modelled. Who gets to model them is the only question here. Citadel in their factory or me in my kitchen, shed, sex dungeon?

The arguements about the ability to convert or not are poor at best and both sides are quoting parts of the rulebook at one another while there is blanket denials over what is a rule in the rulebook.
The rulebook doesn't define a citadel model to say it isn't a conversion but the celebration of the the art by GW leads almost everyone to believe that it is part of game in the same way that painting and assembling models is. Since there is also such a thing as the spirit of the game, not RAI but how a fair minded person approaches the game, I think that not allowing a power weapon to be modeled as whichever of the options the owner wanted is awful.

If you honestly believe a model cannot be converted to include any of it's available codex options then I pity you but see where your painfully narrow interpretation is coming from.

Lol sarcasm is hostility but condescension and pity isn't?

It's okay, I still love you LOB.

That wasn't directed at you in particular, I was slow in crafting that mountain of scorn.

The central qestion isn't really whether conversion is legal or not. The central question is whether a model can define the rules rather than the other way around. By writing a rule where GW asks you to let the model define the rules, they have thrown out quite a bit of history and upset the apple cart.

Personally, I believe that it was just poorly worded ad shoul have been more explicit. The opposite side agrees but wants that specificity to go the other way. Until they do clarify it, we will need to rely on TOs and opponents to decide.

Ascribing shady intentions to either side when they are clearly not there is just bad form though. I would not convert models if I believed that it was against the spirit or letter of the law.

pretre wrote:The permissive rule set thing is a red herring. It works great for playing the game but hardly for assembling, converting and painting.

My dca were made with wyches with a variety of weapons well before 6th gave them an advantage. So apparently I am not only MFA but also able to see the future.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for raw, post a single rule which allows you (in this permissive rule set) to assemble, paint or convert your minis.

You'll find your side has no rules to present either.

So nothing new? Then I think it's safe to close the topic and advise players to decide on a case by case basis.

I never said I agreed with Nos conclusion, I simply don't like snide, BS remarks accusing me of not reading a thread for its content. I have thank you and your argument is no more solid. It is your opinion and is not founded upon a single rule. You are using the absence of other rules to frame your implied permission. I also think that your side of the fence is entering a dangerous territory. We all agree that MFA is a no no. Prove to me you are not gaining an advantage by moding your DCA in this way? Give up? You can't, that's the answer you were searching for.

liturgies of blood wrote:That wasn't directed at you in particular, I was slow in crafting that mountain of scorn.

Lol no prob. The Rome of scorn wasn't built in a day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I am gaining an advantage but it is a legal one. The same advantage I gain by buying and modeling combi meltas on my superiors.

pretre wrote:The central qestion isn't really whether conversion is legal or not. The central question is whether a model can define the rules rather than the other way around. By writing a rule where GW asks you to let the model define the rules, they have thrown out quite a bit of history and upset the apple cart.

Personally, I believe that it was just poorly worded ad shoul have been more explicit. The opposite side agrees but wants that specificity to go the other way. Until they do clarify it, we will need to rely on TOs and opponents to decide.

Ascribing shady intentions to either side when they are clearly not there is just bad form though. I would not convert models if I believed that it was against the spirit or letter of the law.

Hey so it's basically what I already said, but got blindsided by you for stating? Notice I clearly stated it was my opinion in regard to shady play. Agree or not I could not care less as I am entitled as you to have one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:

Red Corsair wrote:This is YMDC, it's all about RAW.

Approximately half of that statement is correct.


YMDC has plenty of room for discussion veering away from the RAW, particularly in cases like this where what is being put forward as the RAW is absurd.

Yeah? try that argument in any other thread, I dare you. This forum lives and dies on RAW to suggest otherwise is absurd.

And entitled to get pushed back at when you call people shady. You were fine up until that point.

pretre wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:That wasn't directed at you in particular, I was slow in crafting that mountain of scorn.

Lol no prob. The Rome of scorn wasn't built in a day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I am gaining an advantage but it is a legal one. The same advantage I gain by buying and modeling combi meltas on my superiors.

The legality of which we are all waiting for you to prove that is. Or were you going to simply regurgitate your opinion over and over again?

Red Corsair wrote: We all agree that MFA is a no no. Prove to me you are not gaining an advantage by moding your DCA in this way? Give up? You can't, that's the answer you were searching for.

The thing is, those arguing in favour of being able to change the weapons don't see it as an issue of modelling for advantage. It's only modelling for advantage if you think that the weapons should be defined by the stock standard model. The opposing argument is that the power weapon rules implicitly allow you to choose which type of power weapon to use, so swapping the weapons isn't any more modelling for advantage than putting a heavy bolter on a Tactical Marine.

pretre wrote:And entitled to get pushed back at when you call people shady. You were fine up until that point.

At what point did I call you shady? I called MFA shady, you simply admitted to partaking in it.

Red Corsair wrote:

pretre wrote:And entitled to get pushed back at when you call people shady. You were fine up until that point.

At what point did I call you shady? I called MFA shady, you simply admitted to partaking in it.

You called changing weapons and using nonstandard dca shady. I have stated in this thread that I have nonstandard dca. You do the math.

Red Corsair wrote:
I never said I agreed with Nos conclusion, I simply don't like snide, BS remarks accusing me of not reading a thread for its content. I have thank you and your argument is no more solid. It is your opinion and is not founded upon a single rule. You are using the absence of other rules to frame your implied permission. I also think that your side of the fence is entering a dangerous territory. We all agree that MFA is a no no. Prove to me you are not gaining an advantage by moding your DCA in this way? Give up? You can't, that's the answer you were searching for.

15 points buys me a power weapon in most codices.
In the kits SW they are mostly axes and swords, DA mauls and swords, BA axes and swords. Since 15 points buys ANY of the weapons types under power weapon, how is it an advantage to pay the points for the weapon I want? This is the exact same as me painting my sword or axe blue instead of metallic and saying it's a frost weapon in my space wolves army. They have balanced the good with the bad in the weapons. St vs AP and I. Yes some are better as certain roles but that is true of every weapon.
er
Modelling for advantage doesn't come into this, muddying the debate with the connotations of crouching all your army, riflemen dreads with autocannons over their shoulders and all the broken examples there is not a genuine discussion of the rules. What we should be talking about is are the weapons balanced off against one another? If they are then there is nothing to talk about here. It is just a case of modelling wargear.
Even if you take an axe and a sword, you still have to pay the points and you must still choose the profile to use each combat. So it's really not that big a deal.

Red Corsair wrote:

pretre wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:That wasn't directed at you in particular, I was slow in crafting that mountain of scorn.

Lol no prob. The Rome of scorn wasn't built in a day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I am gaining an advantage but it is a legal one. The same advantage I gain by buying and modeling combi meltas on my superiors.

The legality of which we are all waiting for you to prove that is. Or were you going to simply regurgitate your opinion over and over again?

The opposite can be said. Prove the illegality of my actions. You can't.

insaniak wrote:

Red Corsair wrote: We all agree that MFA is a no no. Prove to me you are not gaining an advantage by moding your DCA in this way? Give up? You can't, that's the answer you were searching for.

The thing is, those arguing in favour of being able to change the weapons don't see it as an issue of modelling for advantage. It's only modelling for advantage if you think that the weapons should be defined by the stock standard model. The opposing argument is that the power weapon rules implicitly allow you to choose which type of power weapon to use, so swapping the weapons isn't any more modelling for advantage than putting a heavy bolter on a Tactical Marine.

Your argument has been used to death, it falls flat because that heavy bolter was designed with a marine in mind. That power axe you are adding to your DCA, was it from some DCA kit I haven't seen? This is why it's best to agree to disagree until FAQ'd


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:

Red Corsair wrote:

pretre wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:That wasn't directed at you in particular, I was slow in crafting that mountain of scorn.

Lol no prob. The Rome of scorn wasn't built in a day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I am gaining an advantage but it is a legal one. The same advantage I gain by buying and modeling combi meltas on my superiors.

The legality of which we are all waiting for you to prove that is. Or were you going to simply regurgitate your opinion over and over again?

The opposite can be said. Prove the illegality of my actions. You can't.

Permissive set, wow you don't grasp that one do you. I don't have to disprove anything if you can't prove it to begin with.

Red Corsair wrote:Yeah? try that argument in any other thread, I dare you. This forum lives and dies on RAW to suggest otherwise is absurd.

Er... you realise that I'm one of the people who decides what is and isn't appropriate for the forum, right? I've been applying that argument to the forums for several years now... and for most posters, it isn't a problem.