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.

insaniak wrote:

WarlordRob117 wrote:In the force org section of the Grey knights book, under Inquisitorial Henchmen Retinue, you will see a selection for meagerly pointed Warrior Acolyte... for 10 points, you can upgrade him to power armor... essentially space marine armor

OK. So what problem are you seeing with representing a power-armoured acolyte with a model in power armour?

Just using a stock standard space marine would potentially be pushing it a little, since an acolyte is not a space marine. But using marine armour as a basis for it shouldn't be a problem.

I understand that he already has a neuro-gauntlet, but if Im reading several of the posts correct, if they cant look at my army and write down what it is without looking at my list... its not WYSIWYG... which makes no sense to me... imagine what would have happened if there was no nemesis dreadknight or a jokaero-tang?

What doesn't make sense? That's exactly what WYSIWYG means. It's inherent in the name.

If you're trying to use something for which ther eis no model, then you have two options: don't use that unit, or use something that adequately represents what it is supposed to be. So if you want to field a Tervigon, for example, use something that people can look at and clearly identify as a Tervigon rather than a Carnifex.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Landrain wrote:I have a Space Marin in Power Armour with a bolt pistol and a sword, what is he?

A Vanguard Vet?
A Sgt?
A Captain?
A Librarian?

None of the above?
All of the above?

How do you tell the difference?

The Space Marine codex details how to mark your units so that they can be told apart...

nosferatu1001 wrote:Warlord - thats 'counts as" - you are counting a space marine (who is S and T4, never mind all the other stat line changes) as being a S3 T3 model.

I have to look at an Eversor and SEE an eversor. You dont have to model any UPGRADES as there are none for that model.

insaniak wrote:

WarlordRob117 wrote:In the force org section of the Grey knights book, under Inquisitorial Henchmen Retinue, you will see a selection for meagerly pointed Warrior Acolyte... for 10 points, you can upgrade him to power armor... essentially space marine armor

OK. So what problem are you seeing with representing a power-armoured acolyte with a model in power armour?

Just using a stock standard space marine would potentially be pushing it a little, since an acolyte is not a space marine. But using marine armour as a basis for it shouldn't be a problem.

I understand that he already has a neuro-gauntlet, but if Im reading several of the posts correct, if they cant look at my army and write down what it is without looking at my list... its not WYSIWYG... which makes no sense to me... imagine what would have happened if there was no nemesis dreadknight or a jokaero-tang?

What doesn't make sense? That's exactly what WYSIWYG means. It's inherent in the name.

If you're trying to use something for which ther eis no model, then you have two options: don't use that unit, or use something that adequately represents what it is supposed to be. So if you want to field a Tervigon, for example, use something that people can look at and clearly identify as a Tervigon rather than a Carnifex.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Landrain wrote:I have a Space Marin in Power Armour with a bolt pistol and a sword, what is he?

A Vanguard Vet?
A Sgt?
A Captain?
A Librarian?

None of the above?
All of the above?

How do you tell the difference?

The Space Marine codex details how to mark your units so that they can be told apart...

You are missing my point. GW did not make the codex so we should have to struggle with our models such that we feel it necessary to not use the model to make things easier. The are first and foremost a business that needs to make money which is why they say you can field an entire army of BA codex marines as Angry Marines right? ever seen those guys? Power Bats and Crowbars and such? If you had no knowledge of Angry marines how would you know? If I never looked at the tyranid codex, how would I know what a tervigon is or does? If I never read any other codex save for my own armies and the rule book, dont you think it screws the pooch on this whole WYSIWYG mantra? How can I know what you are field unless I dont ask? And thats what Im getting at? You cant know unless you ask, which makes WYSIWYG pointless... IMHO You cant represent everything, and just so i dont seem ignorant to what you're saying, I understand that a model like the Eversor doesnt needed to be modded to fit the bill... I got that... what I dont get, is how in one hand can we say stuff like "you should be able to look at my army and WITH NO QUESTIONS ASKED know what Im fielding and what it does..." thats not fair to anyone... after all, at 'Ard boyz, thats why we're required to give a copy of our lists to each of our opponents, and the TO, that way eveyone can look at it and say "oh thats what that is"
I just feel like people are being extremely draconian about a rule that makes no sense... I know obviously you cant field a rhino as a Land Raider, but even vehicles have this problem... on the land raider you can mount the guns on the front hatches instead of the rear hatches effectively giving you a very crucial and pivotal edge... I have been told by several parties that this is both wrong and right... wrong because like you, they quote the pictures in the codex stating that since none are seen modeled that way its not legal, and yet others say its right to do because if GW wanted the guns mounted on the rear hatches, they would have made it impossible to mount them as such...

The plot thickens... DUNDUNDUN!!!

The plot isn't thickening. You're taking wysiwyg to mean more than upgrades. It doesn't. Stop straw manning.

GW produces almost every weapon there are rules for with clear descriptions.
GW provides unique-looking weapons to fit the rules.
GW provides detailed written and visual images of these weapons so we know what they are.

And people still want to give a model a chainsword then have it be a chainsowrd *OR* a power weapon depending on his mood at that given time and claim WYSIWYG is confusing, unfair, impossible to follow rule.

Chainswords are not power weapons. If you want a power weapon, then model a power weapon. It is pretty easy to do. If you can't understand or follow WYSIWYG, then don't go to events that require it.

WYSIWYG pertains to everything on the table, not just upgrades... look it up... there were several discussions about this the weeks leading up to 'Ard Boyz and it was agreed that everything be represented in a way that keeps people from looking at the sheets and just play the game... which I have no problem with... what I have a problem with is when people present hollow arguements at the table by stating that WYSIWYG is me being able to look at your army tell exactly what you have and what it does... it is impossible... I know what an eviscerator is as do a decent chunk of everyone on this forum... but does everyone know what it does without looking at a codex? go ahead and give it a try... many dont, and many could easily mistake that as a chainsword, or a Warrior Acolyte in Power armor as a Grey knight...

another example, I have a unit of Pink Horrors that has the Bolt of Tzeentch upgrade... which one has the upgrade?

WarlordRob117 wrote:WYSIWYG pertains to everything on the table, not just upgrades... look it up... there were several discussions about this the weeks leading up to 'Ard Boyz and it was agreed that everything be represented in a way that keeps people from looking at the sheets and just play the game... which I have no problem with... what I have a problem with is when people present hollow arguements at the table by stating that WYSIWYG is me being able to look at your army tell exactly what you have and what it does... it is impossible... I know what an eviscerator is as do a decent chunk of everyone on this forum... but does everyone know what it does without looking at a codex? go ahead and give it a try... many dont, and many could easily mistake that as a chainsword, or a Warrior Acolyte in Power armor as a Grey knight...

another example, I have a unit of Pink Horrors that has the Bolt of Tzeentch upgrade... which one has the upgrade?

People model the upgrade all the time with pink horrors.

It is not impossible, it is not hollow.

All you need to know is which has the eviscerator, if you don't know what an eviscerator is, then you need to look up the mechanics, but I should have to guess that your powerfist or pocket knife is an eviscerator.

WarlordRob117 wrote:WYSIWYG pertains to everything on the table, not just upgrades... look it up...

What, you mean Page 47, Box out, which specifically only applies to CHARACTERS?

Or do you mean the rules in the Eldar codex which unfortunately extends this to the ELdar codex as a whole?

As a general rule, WYSIWYG only applies to characters. Most tournaments extend this to Upgrades on any model, not just on character models.

According to the 'Ard boyz info sheet I got for this past one Nos it said every model/unit needs to be WYSIWYG or it is not a legal model/unit represented.

It is hollow because I should be able to take a minute or two before the game begins, look at your sheet that you are supposed to give me before the game begins, ask a question or two and proceed to play... I dont care if you got a bunch of Circus clown nic-naks mounted on GW bases to serve as a Vanilla marines chapter known as the Freaks... as long as whats on your sheet is valid... whats on the models should not matter... at all...

And? You made a blanket statement about WYSIWYG applying to everything - and told us to look it up. WYSIWYG does not apply to everything by default, but can do so at a specific tournament. If you wish to play in that tournament then abide by their rules.

Youre now saying a specific tournaments rules are silly - well in that case dont play in it.

I will be a man and admit that I stand corrected... however, based upon the information I had from a sheet that was given as a Liscensed!!! 'Ard Boyz document that stated as such, not one my store cooked up last minute, then what do I have to go on other than that... rules are the rules and if that is the blanket rules for all the 'Ard boyz tournaments across the country then so be it...

Im saying the 'Ard Boyz WYSIWYG rule is folly, as it is my opinion, and it is your opinion that it is not... now lets be nice and give someone else a turn to speak their thoughts about WYSIWYG...
After all, the thread is about opinions of WYSIWYG, not if I should play in a tournament or not... topic topic...

Actually I didnt give my opinion on ard boyz - you made that up. Personally 100% wysiwyg on upgrades? Perfectly fine, and not too much to expect.

100% wysiwyg, including standard well known equipment? fairly silly

nosferatu1001 wrote:

WarlordRob117 wrote:WYSIWYG pertains to everything on the table, not just upgrades... look it up...

What, you mean Page 47, Box out, which specifically only applies to CHARACTERS?

Or do you mean the rules in the Eldar codex which unfortunately extends this to the ELdar codex as a whole?

As a general rule, WYSIWYG only applies to characters. Most tournaments extend this to Upgrades on any model, not just on character models.

Then I misread your intent in this statement...

And I agree to an extent that if you plan on fielding models specifically designed for that codex, then please please please model the upgrades as such for the charatacters especially a create your own commander, or case in point Arjac or do like I did with Ulrik and make the model as close as possible...

But again when the rules state that everything needs to be modeled with exactly what is on that model you get this...

I think in general you shouldn't be swapping out power weapons with chainswords, but....in a GK army if you have a chainsword on a stick, that's just modeling and if you surprised someone with the power weapon effect then that's pretty much on them as all GK have it. You could have poop on a stick and people should know that you get no armor save against it.

WarlordRob117 wrote:I will be a man and admit that I stand corrected... however, based upon the information I had from a sheet that was given as a Liscensed!!! 'Ard Boyz document that stated as such, not one my store cooked up last minute, then what do I have to go on other than that... rules are the rules and if that is the blanket rules for all the 'Ard boyz tournaments across the country then so be it...

Im saying the 'Ard Boyz WYSIWYG rule is folly, as it is my opinion, and it is your opinion that it is not... now lets be nice and give someone else a turn to speak their thoughts about WYSIWYG...
After all, the thread is about opinions of WYSIWYG, not if I should play in a tournament or not... topic topic...

WYSIWIG is fine and easily obtainable for almost every single GW codex. Most tourneys require WYSIWYG down to the individual units because you can't say shoota boyz are slugga boyz.

You have yet to provide a single example where WYSIWYG is impossible or unreasonable. All your examples the model already has the equipment or is an upgrade which can and should be modeled and is very easy to model.

nkelsch wrote:GW produces almost every weapon there are rules for with clear descriptions.
GW provides unique-looking weapons to fit the rules.
GW provides detailed written and visual images of these weapons so we know what they are.

I've yet to see a picture (in a codex/wd) or a bit for acid blood, toxic miasma, strangleweb or spike rifle (just to name a few).

nkelsch wrote:

WarlordRob117 wrote:I will be a man and admit that I stand corrected... however, based upon the information I had from a sheet that was given as a Liscensed!!! 'Ard Boyz document that stated as such, not one my store cooked up last minute, then what do I have to go on other than that... rules are the rules and if that is the blanket rules for all the 'Ard boyz tournaments across the country then so be it...

Im saying the 'Ard Boyz WYSIWYG rule is folly, as it is my opinion, and it is your opinion that it is not... now lets be nice and give someone else a turn to speak their thoughts about WYSIWYG...
After all, the thread is about opinions of WYSIWYG, not if I should play in a tournament or not... topic topic...

WYSIWIG is fine and easily obtainable for almost every single GW codex. Most tourneys require WYSIWYG down to the individual units because you can't say shoota boyz are slugga boyz.

You have yet to provide a single example where WYSIWYG is impossible or unreasonable. All your examples the model already has the equipment or is an upgrade which can and should be modeled and is very easy to model.

Oh but I have... For the upteenthmillion time... the Warrior Acolyte... In the GK codex it gives a picture of an IG stormtooper model...

Just so you know, the loadout for the Acolyte is: Flak Armor, Laspistol and ChainSword... HAVE YOU SEEN THE STORMTROOPER MODEL!?!?!? it has a hotshot lasgun by the way...

want any other examples?

Happyjew wrote:

nkelsch wrote:GW produces almost every weapon there are rules for with clear descriptions.
GW provides unique-looking weapons to fit the rules.
GW provides detailed written and visual images of these weapons so we know what they are.

I've yet to see a picture (in a codex/wd) or a bit for acid blood, toxic miasma, strangleweb or spike rifle (just to name a few).

or scythian venom talon, or orbital strike relay, or conversion beam, or needle psitol... just piggybacking hope you dont mind lol

Happyjew wrote:

nkelsch wrote:GW produces almost every weapon there are rules for with clear descriptions.
GW provides unique-looking weapons to fit the rules.
GW provides detailed written and visual images of these weapons so we know what they are.

I've yet to see a picture (in a codex/wd) or a bit for acid blood, toxic miasma, strangleweb or spike rifle (just to name a few).

There was an article some time during the life of the last tyranid codex which gave rules for spike rifles and stangle webs I remember spike rifles being a barb from a flesh hook attached to the end of a gun, I think it was a devourer anyone care to help out?



I have a problem with no chaos combi weapons for power armoured chaos marines

WarlordRob117 wrote:

Oh but I have... For the upteenthmillion time... the Warrior Acolyte... In the GK codex it gives a picture of an IG stormtooper model...

Just so you know, the loadout for the Acolyte is: Flak Armor, Laspistol and ChainSword... HAVE YOU SEEN THE STORMTROOPER MODEL!?!?!? it has a hotshot lasgun by the way...

want any other examples?

Your example is bad.

Storm Trooper armor can be Flak Armor. laspistols exist and can be gotten from numerous models. Chainswords exist and can be gotten from numerous models.

Just because you have to convert models doesn't mean WYSIWYG is impossible or unreasonable. if you hate converting don't play that army or that unit.

Happyjew wrote:

nkelsch wrote:GW produces almost every weapon there are rules for with clear descriptions.
GW provides unique-looking weapons to fit the rules.
GW provides detailed written and visual images of these weapons so we know what they are.

I've yet to see a picture (in a codex/wd) or a bit for acid blood, toxic miasma, strangleweb or spike rifle (just to name a few).

or scythian venom talon, or orbital strike relay, or conversion beam, or needle psitol... just piggybacking hope you dont mind lol

You can convert them. It doesn't give you blanket permission to not model anything anywhere. All of those options you can convert. Attaching a 'spike' to a devourer so everyone clearly sees those devouers are spike cannons meets WYSIWYG. If it is optional, you need to distinguish the gear on a model in some way so the opponent can tell 'that model has it, that one doesn't'

If you can't distinguish and can't convert, blurring your vision by trying to say 'I can't model the blood inside a model so my chainsword can be a power weapon' makes you obtuse. It doesn't mean WYSIWYG is impossible or unreasonable and that opponents should expect to play 40k with a decoder ring because you want power weapons and chain swords to be interchangeable.

@WarlordRob: Go ahead and piggyback.

curtis wrote:
There was an article some time during the life of the last tyranid codex which gave rules for spike rifles and stangle webs I remember spike rifles being a barb from a flesh hook attached to the end of a gun, I think it was a devourer anyone care to help out?

Unfortunately all I can find on Stranglers and Skewers (which is what I believe you are referring to) is dead links.

Happyjew wrote:@WarlordRob: Go ahead and piggyback.

curtis wrote:
There was an article some time during the life of the last tyranid codex which gave rules for spike rifles and stangle webs I remember spike rifles being a barb from a flesh hook attached to the end of a gun, I think it was a devourer anyone care to help out?

Unfortunately all I can find on Stranglers and Skewers (which is what I believe you are referring to) is dead links.

Weird I don't remember it having them names in it, well on the bright side it proves my brain is working normally, must get on a real computer and have a butchers.

nkelsch wrote:

WarlordRob117 wrote:

Oh but I have... For the upteenthmillion time... the Warrior Acolyte... In the GK codex it gives a picture of an IG stormtooper model...

Just so you know, the loadout for the Acolyte is: Flak Armor, Laspistol and ChainSword... HAVE YOU SEEN THE STORMTROOPER MODEL!?!?!? it has a hotshot lasgun by the way...

want any other examples?

Your example is bad.

Storm Trooper armor can be Flak Armor. laspistols exist and can be gotten from numerous models. Chainswords exist and can be gotten from numerous models.

Just because you have to convert models doesn't mean WYSIWYG is impossible or unreasonable. if you hate converting don't play that army or that unit.

Happyjew wrote:

nkelsch wrote:GW produces almost every weapon there are rules for with clear descriptions.
GW provides unique-looking weapons to fit the rules.
GW provides detailed written and visual images of these weapons so we know what they are.

I've yet to see a picture (in a codex/wd) or a bit for acid blood, toxic miasma, strangleweb or spike rifle (just to name a few).

or scythian venom talon, or orbital strike relay, or conversion beam, or needle psitol... just piggybacking hope you dont mind lol

You can convert them. It doesn't give you blanket permission to not model anything anywhere. All of those options you can convert. Attaching a 'spike' to a devourer so everyone clearly sees those devouers are spike cannons meets WYSIWYG. If it is optional, you need to distinguish the gear on a model in some way so the opponent can tell 'that model has it, that one doesn't'

If you can't distinguish and can't convert, blurring your vision by trying to say 'I can't model the blood inside a model so my chainsword can be a power weapon' makes you obtuse. It doesn't mean WYSIWYG is impossible or unreasonable and that opponents should expect to play 40k with a decoder ring because you want power weapons and chain swords to be interchangeable.

Thats not right and you know it... I shouldnt have to buy three different models to field one model especially if my hacking skillz are not quite up to par with your. Further more, you keep adding a fallacy to your own opinion. By saying that you have to convert models to be in guidance with WYSIWYG, you are condeming the practice of fabricating things that do not exist as models. Case in point the tervigon again.

Tell you what, I field a bunch of Space marines carrying hotshot lasguns, just so I can laugh my tail off when you say... "Grey knight strike squads cant take those as upgrades"...

next thing you know eveyone is gonna say you cant field vanilla marine models as grey knights lol



See above statement... it does give you blanket permission by your logic... again, I will laugh my tail off when you complain that my Ordo Xenos Inquisitor is carrying a miniature model of the empire state building because to me it looks like a conversion beamer...

IMPOSSIBLE!!!

I have no idea what you just said, so here's a bunny with a pancake on his head.

WarlordRob117 wrote:

Thats not right and you know it... I shouldnt have to buy three different models to field one model especially if my hacking skillz are not quite up to par with your. Further more, you keep adding a fallacy to your own opinion. By saying that you have to convert models to be in guidance with WYSIWYG, you are condeming the practice of fabricating things that do not exist as models. Case in point the tervigon again.

Tell you what, I field a bunch of Space marines carrying hotshot lasguns, just so I can laugh my tail off when you say... "Grey knight strike squads cant take those as upgrades"...

next thing you know eveyone is gonna say you cant field vanilla marine models as grey knights lol



See above statement... it does give you blanket permission by your logic... again, I will laugh my tail off when you complain that my Ordo Xenos Inquisitor is carrying a miniature model of the empire state building because to me it looks like a conversion beamer...

IMPOSSIBLE!!!

You can buy GW's stock models and accept the possible unoptomized or limited weapon options GW provides you. You do not have 'the right' to field every possible option when you purchase a single GW model. If you want to use models with custom weapon upgrades or models GW doesn't have a model for, you can convert them. GW gives you the ability to convertmodels and gives you descriptions on what they should look like.

If you don't like it, don't play GW's game. Every unit and weapon option is possible to convert and make WYSIWYG. It is neither impossible or unreasonable which is why 'ard boyz requires it.

You make little sense... I have no idea how or why you are fielding Space marines with hotshot lasguns and calling them grey knights. Maybe if you were a Nid player I would have pitty for you, but imperial-based armies have every weapon option 100% available.

@nkelsch
You claim that GW provides visual images of these weapons so we know what they are. I mentioned 2 weapons that GW has NOT provided visual images of. If there is no set reference to what a weapon looks like, we're entering the realm of "counts as". As long as someone is consistent, it should not be a problem.

Happyjew wrote:@nkelsch
You claim that GW provides visual images of these weapons so we know what they are. I mentioned 2 weapons that GW has NOT provided visual images of. Additionally, some armies have multiple designs for power weapons, I.E. Eldar - Dire Avenger Exarch pw is a blade on a staff; Howling Banshee pw is just a sword.

They have given written descriptions and there are valid ways to convert them.

We also know how to paint power weapons to distinguish them as power weapons.

I still fail to see the point why extra effort for a few weapons somehow justifies ignoring WYSIWYG game-wide.

Is that one or two pancakes... cause one is great, two is awesome!!!

I'll see your bunny and raise you a...

It appears to be a single pancake.

I am in no way saying that a few upgrades/weapons without any sort of official design ignores WYSIWYG game-wide.

nkelsch wrote:

WarlordRob117 wrote:

Thats not right and you know it... I shouldnt have to buy three different models to field one model especially if my hacking skillz are not quite up to par with your. Further more, you keep adding a fallacy to your own opinion. By saying that you have to convert models to be in guidance with WYSIWYG, you are condeming the practice of fabricating things that do not exist as models. Case in point the tervigon again.

Tell you what, I field a bunch of Space marines carrying hotshot lasguns, just so I can laugh my tail off when you say... "Grey knight strike squads cant take those as upgrades"...

next thing you know eveyone is gonna say you cant field vanilla marine models as grey knights lol



See above statement... it does give you blanket permission by your logic... again, I will laugh my tail off when you complain that my Ordo Xenos Inquisitor is carrying a miniature model of the empire state building because to me it looks like a conversion beamer...

IMPOSSIBLE!!!

You can buy GW's stock models and accept the possible unoptomized or limited weapon options GW provides you. You do not have 'the right' to field every possible option when you purchase a single GW model. If you want to use models with custom weapon upgrades or models GW doesn't have a model for, you can convert them. GW gives you the ability to convertmodels and gives you descriptions on what they should look like.

If you don't like it, don't play GW's game. Every unit and weapon option is possible to convert and make WYSIWYG. It is neither impossible or unreasonable which is why 'ard boyz requires it.

You make little sense... I have no idea how or why you are fielding Space marines with hotshot lasguns and calling them grey knights. Maybe if you were a Nid player I would have pitty for you, but imperial-based armies have every weapon option 100% available.

OMG are you cereal?!?!?!?! I told you Warrior Acolytes can wear power armor... power armor is space marine armor as there is no substitute by your logic... further more they can uprgrade to hotshot lasguns... so to make you happy I will cut off some stormtrooper arms and glue them to Space Marine models...

You see where the confusion comes from? I was following WYSIWYG by your standard, giving you hints as to what I was doing, explained with verbatim entries from the GK codex sitting 5 inches from my face, and you are still confused...

I motion to strike your Honor... IMPOSSIBEBLE!!!!

and I dont need your pity, I am a GK player that uses any technology when I want, however I want... if I wanna ride Optimus Prime into battle instead of a dreadknight, you dont have to like it... just know death will come for you all the same...

WarlordRob117 wrote:

OMG are you cereal?!?!?!?! I told you Warrior Acolytes can wear power armor... power armor is space marine armor as there is no substitute by your logic... further more they can uprgrade to hotshot lasguns... so to make you happy I will cut off some stormtrooper arms and glue them to Space Marine models...

You see where the confusion comes from? I was following WYSIWYG by your standard, giving you hints as to what I was doing, explained with verbatim entries from the GK codex sitting 5 inches from my face, and you are still confused...

I motion to strike your Honor... IMPOSSIBEBLE!!!!

and I dont need your pity, I am a GK player that uses any technology when I want, however I want... if I wanna ride Optimus Prime into battle instead of a dreadknight, you dont have to like it... just know death will come for you all the same...

Space marines are more than power armor. Not all Power armor is space marine armor. You would not be representing the S3 T3 of the acolyte with a S4 T4 model. It would take some converting to make a space marine into an acolyte and by time you converted it, it would have the appropriate gear and be WYSIWYG.

WarlordRob117 wrote:OMG are you cereal?!?!?!?! I told you Warrior Acolytes can wear power armor... power armor is space marine armor as there is no substitute by your logic... further more they can uprgrade to hotshot lasguns... so to make you happy I will cut off some stormtrooper arms and glue them to Space Marine models...

You see where the confusion comes from? I was following WYSIWYG by your standard, giving you hints as to what I was doing, explained with verbatim entries from the GK codex sitting 5 inches from my face, and you are still confused...

I motion to strike your Honor... IMPOSSIBEBLE!!!!

and I dont need your pity, I am a GK player that uses any technology when I want, however I want... if I wanna ride Optimus Prime into battle instead of a dreadknight, you dont have to like it... just know death will come for you all the same...

What confusion? Take a power armored model (which can be different from the default SM models - GK have lots of PA and they don't all look like SM) and give it a hot-shot lasgun.
What's impossible?

So, where does it saw in the rules that a chainsword cannot be a power weapon? Why do I have to Have 10 sgts with chainswords and 10 with power weapons. When i can have ten sergeants with a chainsword, that can be upgrade for ten points to have a better motor and adimantium teeth so it ignores armor saves. All my chainswords will be either ccw or pw in a game. So how is that confusing? I clearly point out that either all the chainswords are power weapons, or i point out all the chainswords are ccws. If you find that confusing, well maybe this game is too complicated.

I'm sorry but did i miss the part of a space marine model where it has s4 t4 modeled on it? If he wants to put a hotshot on a space marine model and call it a warrior acolyte, then its wysisyg. All the equipment is modeled. Lets go over it: Equipment: Power Armor, modeled. Hotshot lasgun, modeled. Or he could even just use a space marine model as a warrior acolyte with a boltgun. Perfectly legal. I fail to see whats the problem.