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.

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.

there isn't one.

MFA is a convention that while conversions, scratch builds, and counts as units are encouraged, nobody should gain an in game benefit because of a modelling choice.

It's, for lack of a better word, a very common house rule.

Polonius wrote: 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.

nod

I agree with the fact that it can be taken to silliness.

I even agree that MFA is a slippery slope.

I just think it is utterly ridiculous to use that to assert that to create a model that the codex says is legal, is illegal.

I wonder, if all the FAQs stated erratta as: Anytime you see 'Power Weapon' replace with 'Power Sword, Power Halberd, Power Axe, Power Maul or Power Stave' would these folks be having the same absurd overreaction? Or would they be cool with the change?


GW didn't bother with that since they assumed making 'Power Weapon' a category, and tieing it to the WYSIWYG rule, was enough. Guess it wasn't enough.

Therion wrote:

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.

No, I copped to modelling to advantage under 'your' (meaning the anti-Axes for DCA) definition in the other thread. It is just that you are using such a broad definition that we can't help but be MFA.

Funnily enough, that question about the number of close combat attacks if you have a power axe and a power sword is relevant because if you lose an attack by arming yourself in such a way it's arguable you're no longer at an advantage because of your modeling and therefore doing nothing wrong (morally or otherwise).

Polonius wrote:nobody should gain an in game benefit because of a modelling choice.

Of course, choosing wargear, which then has to be modeled properly under WYSIWYG should not be considered MFA, because then the definition of MFA is so broad as to include everything besides stock models. Giving your tactical marine a flamer is MFA under this broad definition (unless you use the AOBR marine! LOL). And that's just silly.

Polonius wrote:

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.

there isn't one.

MFA is a convention that while conversions, scratch builds, and counts as units are encouraged, nobody should gain an in game benefit because of a modelling choice.

It's, for lack of a better word, a very common house rule.

So what this whole argument is really about is, at best, basically a legal codex option versus a popular house rule?

Good grief.

2 special weapons grant an attack.

There is no advantage in using a different item with the same cost. That is the point of points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tgjensen wrote:So what this whole argument is really about is, at best, basically a legal codex option versus a popular house rule?

This should not have taken 10 pages.

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.

They gain permission to use all those parts by the codex. No such thing is happening for power weapons. Are not told to pick one of them. Thus you can not. You use any power weapon that is provided for your model. Then, when you need its rules (which is long after building the list) you now can tell by looking at your model.

Joe Mama wrote: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".

Because there are no crusader models with power axes. Thus you can never look at a crusader and find a power weapon that counts as axe. Crusaders are provided with power weapons, so you can build your wargear choice. Using a different bit for advantage would not be ok - like using a different bit for my Waaagh! Banner nob would not be ok either - even if it's still a nob body.

Requiem wrote: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

You can convert you models in whatever way you like, no one prevents you from doing that. As said before, DCA with two axes are fine, as long as you still use them like swords.
Exactly as grot guards still uses IG rules.
Converting your models to look cooler should not impact your game - but that goes both ways.

I agree with you that his has nothing to do with the GK codex.

Joe Mama wrote:

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?).

I already answered that. You're going in circles for that matter.

Slinky wrote: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.

I did. He even answered me. Maybe if some of the other threaddwellers would stop back-patting each other three to four times between each of my posts, it would be more readable.

pretre wrote:

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.

Where? I see only one crusader, on page 77, and he is holding a sword.

I guess I never knew I was a Grey Knights player.

MFA can be of various shapes and sizes, but I assume it roughly means you're gaining an unfair advantage over other users of the same "type" of unit, as in, the unit described in the codex, and of which the official miniature and artwork should represent - and the measure of this representation can be as tight or as loose as people will allow it.

If I was playing against DCA with both power swords and axes, I wouldn't bother. I wouldn't even bother if it had two power swords and one of them counted as an axe as long as I was told before hand by the player. This could represent a multitude of situations, from the DCA taking another stance or grip on the weapon that made it unwieldy but pack a lot more punch.
The fluff and the rules seem to converge in this, in a certain way; Logan Grimnar had the option of wielding his Axe of Morkai as a PowerFist or a Frost Blade, and this didn't break the rules.

Now, when people scream "MFA", I assume that the model in question is benefitting not from a change in weaponry or options, as long as he is entitled to them under the codex - in this case, my opinion; the DCA is, because it is equipped with two power weapons, which the rulebook states, are what is represented on the model. The official, sanctioned GW model only has one or two swords (I'd feel someone was TFG if he argued the first couldn't be used because he only has one sword) but that doesn't or shouldn't mean that it's the only interpretation of the unit type available.

I mean, I've been following Warhammer 40k since 2nd Edtion and I've seen a lot of beautiful armies and conversions that were memorable because of their divergence to the "official" GW figures.

There are abuses everywhere, rules-wise or not; claiming this could escalate into a "Grot-tank sized Land Raider" or "Stompa count as Warboss" type of abuse is, in my opinion, a very large stretch.

Joe Mama wrote:I wonder, if all the FAQs stated erratta as: Anytime you see 'Power Weapon' replace with 'Power Sword, Power Halberd, Power Axe, Power Maul or Power Stave' would these folks be having the same absurd overreaction? Or would they be cool with the change?

I'd be cool with that rule. Because that's actually something different from what it says now.

Jidmah wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:I wonder, if all the FAQs stated erratta as: Anytime you see 'Power Weapon' replace with 'Power Sword, Power Halberd, Power Axe, Power Maul or Power Stave' would these folks be having the same absurd overreaction? Or would they be cool with the change?

I'd be cool with that rule. Because that's actually something different from what it says now.

I don't see why. The codex allows a 'power weapon'
rulebook: a power weapon is a sword/axe/lance/maul, and here are the rules for each type

same thing really

Jidmah wrote:Because there are no crusader models with power axes.

BZZT. WRONG. Sure there are. Someone told you they made some.

Crusaders are provided with power weapons, so you can build your wargear choice.

What is this word salad here? Crusaders are an entry in a codex, with certain stats and wargear. Their weapon is listed as "power weapon" which in 6th edition is a category, not a specific type. As the rulebook says, the type within the category depends on the WYSIWYG rule, the type depends on the type the model is built with. Simple.

Using a different bit for advantage would not be ok

Modeling legal wargear as WYSIWYG as the rules state is not only ok, but a requirement.


You completely and utterly failed. Please try again.

Destrado wrote:I guess I never knew I was a Grey Knights player.
[...]
There are abuses everywhere, rules-wise or not; claiming this could escalate into a "Grot-tank sized Land Raider" or "Stompa count as Warboss" type of abuse is, in my opinion, a very large stretch.

I play orks, I neither have armor nor power weapons, so you can hardly accuse me of arguing for personal interests.

Lets pick less ridiculous examples I have seen at my FLGS: Necron barges on terminators bases, prone tau, Vendettas on small skimmer bases, gaunt as Tyranid prime (at least it was colored gold), razorbacks with lascannons modeled on the front, LR demolisher with siege shield as vindicator.

Some of those weren't even looking for advantages, but can you guess which ones? I know I can't.

Jidmah wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:I wonder, if all the FAQs stated erratta as: Anytime you see 'Power Weapon' replace with 'Power Sword, Power Halberd, Power Axe, Power Maul or Power Stave' would these folks be having the same absurd overreaction? Or would they be cool with the change?

I'd be cool with that rule. Because that's actually something different from what it says now.

Noticed you clipped out the rest of that post. Real classy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jidmah wrote:Some of those weren't even looking for advantages, but can you guess which ones? I know I can't.

So why is an infantry model on an infantry base having its legal wargear properly model a problem?

Codex WH had converted crusaders with alternate models.

Therion wrote:

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.

Well, I'm not terribly invested in the outcome of the DCA problem, but I am interested in the precedent it sets.

I think there's a way of looking at it where converting DCAs with axes is MFA. I still think the intent of the rule was to allow anything with a "power weapon" to freely choose.

That said, even if it were MFA, it's such a minor example as to not merit admonition. It's no different than using an older rhino (which gain tangible benefits). It's a commonly accepted part of the game. You ran into this with basing all the time in 3rd and 4th editions.

I simply think that given the internal balance with the power weapon options, the way the rule is written, and the hobby benefits of encouraging conversions one should not stop people from arming power weaponed models as they see fit.

On a related tangent. What happens if a Howling Banshee gets an axe (or 2) and charges. I1 or I10?

The rule for modifiers says that modifiers that 'set' a stat value are applied last, but doesn't say how to apply them or in what order.

but I am interested in the precedent it sets.

The problem is that no matter how anyone here agrees that the rule should be played it won't set a precedent of any kind. Like you said it yourself MFA is a house rule and the morally justifiable extent of it varies from club to club and tournament to tournament. I find it much easier to agree with Jidmah's policy of no modelling for advantage than the crew that keeps telling me I don't have to play with GW's official models and should seek advantages wherever I can as long as the points costs and weapon options don't change.

Requiem wrote:

Jidmah wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:I wonder, if all the FAQs stated erratta as: Anytime you see 'Power Weapon' replace with 'Power Sword, Power Halberd, Power Axe, Power Maul or Power Stave' would these folks be having the same absurd overreaction? Or would they be cool with the change?

I'd be cool with that rule. Because that's actually something different from what it says now.

I don't see why. The codex allows a 'power weapon'
rulebook: a power weapon is a sword/axe/lance/maul, and here are the rules for each type

same thing really

... and then goes on

"If a model's wargear says it has a power weapon which has no further special rules, look at the model to tell which type it has: if it's sword or a dagger, it's a power sowrd, if it's an axe or halber, it's a power axes, if it's a blunt weapon like a mace or staff, it's a power maul, if it's the spear or lance, it's a power lance." (BRB pg 61)

So, unless you are looking at a model modified from the norm, you'd find swords on DCA and crusaders. Thus, unless you modify your model for an advantage, you wouldn't be able to find a power axe, spear or lance.

@Joe: "Someone" is irrelevant as long as they do not equal Citadel. You are not allowed to play with PP or lego models either. Unless you are doing so on purpose, I'd like to point out that you are getting rude.

Therion wrote:

but I am interested in the precedent it sets.

The problem is that no matter how anyone here agrees that the rule should be played it won't set a precedent of any kind. Like you said it yourself MFA is a house rule and the morally justifiable extent of it varies from club to club and tournament to tournament.

I guess I mean even from a theoretical standpoint.

Calling power axe weilding tactical sargeants, or power sword wielding techmarines, improper or bad or wrong seems... overly judgmental.

Any rule interpretation that requires combing through back catalogues to see if a conversion is legit just seems like a bad call.

Jidmah wrote:@Joe: "Someone" is irrelevant as long as they do not equal Citadel.

According to the rule you pulled out of your body. Sure. But not according to the rule book. You clearly added your own rule on top of the one in the book.



Anywhoo, question for you. Why did some of the FAQs switch entries from specific, to the general term 'power weapon'? Just to confuse us all?

Edited to add:L

BA: In the bestiary and army list, replace all references to “power sword” with “power weapon”.

Jidmah wrote:
I play orks, I neither have armor nor power weapons, so you can hardly accuse me of arguing for personal interests.

Lets pick less ridiculous examples I have seen at my FLGS: Necron barges on terminators bases, prone tau, Vendettas on small skimmer bases, gaunt as Tyranid prime (at least it was colored gold), razorbacks with lascannons modeled on the front, LR demolisher with siege shield as vindicator.

Some of those weren't even looking for advantages, but can you guess which ones? I know I can't.

I play Orks How do you model 'Eavy Armour on your Nobz, by the way?

I can't guess which ones, no, I haven't seem them personally. Is it something that's done one time, i.e. proxying? Is it necessity? Are all those TFG? Is one of them even TFG? You don't know; I don't know. Have you played any of them? Were they good sports? Did you point this out to them? (well, except the Vendetta guy I'd guess)

Hell I've seen white dwarfs where there were pictures battle reports with people using a can of Pringles as a Carnifex as it was amusingly pointed out by the staff. I just think that limiting the game to the official models is far worse than not allowing any kind of conversion just because there's a risk the player is MFA.

Which I don't really think is the case with DCA, it's simply a different tactical option and one that is allowed by the rulebook and GW with the Power Weapons being assumed by what you see on the model your opponent owns. You totally have the right to decline playing against people whom you think that have broken the rules. But then again, your definition of what constitutes a rules abuse could differ from mine; would you be upset if I used wyches with power swords and told you before the game they were power axes? I think this is relevant because it mostly shows the disposition of the person I'm playing against.

Jidmah wrote:
So, unless you are looking at a model modified from the norm, you'd find swords on DCA and crusaders. Thus, unless you modify your model for an advantage, you wouldn't be able to find a power axe, spear or lance..

The problem here is that you attributing motive.

I have a company commander with a power ax that I converted because I liked it. It now happens to have an "advantage" of sorts.

This is the problem: you are making a moral judgment of an action that, at the time, had no moral dimension.

But it doesn't state the condition of the model; does it say formal? Does it say original?

If it mentioned something pertaining to available wargear via bits in the models sprue, then yes, I'd agree with that. But it doesn't.

It also says nothing about the model HAVING to be original either. This assumption is based off of the fact of straightforwardness rather than innovation; and GW encourages innovation, or else GW Investors cry.

This is the problem: you are making a moral judgment of an action that, at the time, had no moral dimension.

You're no doubt speaking the truth about your commissar model. You modeled it and gained an advantage but it's a result you couldn't predict at the time of modeling. In law we'd call your act illegal but not punishable. You can't say the same of anyone who equips his DCA's with the combination of both the axe and the sword because not only is it an uncommon combination but specifically has only newfound advantages with zero disadvantages. So I guess your reply to Jidmah was purely theoretical and not about this thread in particular.

Joe Mama wrote:

Jidmah wrote:@Joe: "Someone" is irrelevant as long as they do not equal Citadel.

According to the rule you pulled out of your body. Sure. But not according to the rule book. You clearly added your own rule on top of the one in the book.



Anywhoo, question for you. Why did some of the FAQs switch entries from specific, to the general term 'power weapon'? Just to confuse us all?

1) Actually, that's the first rule in the book
2) Because some of those models don't come with swords.

Jidmah wrote:So, unless you are looking at a model modified from the norm, you'd find swords on DCA and crusaders. Thus, unless you modify your model for an advantage, you wouldn't be able to find a power axe, spear or lance.

Establish the norm. The rule book doesn't - what is allowing you to? Again, you're drawing a completely arbitrary line with zero rules support.

@Joe: "Someone" is irrelevant as long as they do not equal Citadel. You are not allowed to play with PP or lego models either. Unless you are doing so on purpose, I'd like to point out that you are getting rude.

So my buddy that scratch built 30 crusaders and DCA (the shields and one weapon are magnetized) last year with a mix of spears, axes, swords, and daggers has to throw out anything that isn't a sword or shield?

Oh, wait - they're scratch built, so already not legal.

Did someone just try to get all legal on Polonius?

So many people are continuing down this road, when my original point that sparked this in FAQs and drove it here was:

If you model your DCA with an axe AND a sword. You are modelling for advantage. Just bloody admit it.

I am not saying it is against the rules, I am not saying it is 'illegal' and you will go to jail.

Anyone who denies that giving the DCA a power axe and a power sword is a clearly unintended side effect of the FAQ and weapon changes has their head so far up their posterior, it might be hard to get it back out when all of this is finished.

We all know the DCA were given two close combat weapons for an extra attack in their profile, not to have some silly option of splitting attacks between weapons; which is often a sacrifice made by characters or upgraded units at the expense of losing something else (SM Sgt for example would have no ranged attack if he used 2 melee weapons).

To all the sensible people who understand this, I love you. Let's play some 40k.