Replacing stock PW swords with Axe to get the new 6ed Axe's rule (AP2, Int1)

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.

**kirsanth**

You said in English what I said in goon.

A Town Called Malus wrote:No, they're saying that sticking a Vindicator Cannon on a turret is modelling for advantage because it changes the function of the Vindicator Cannon from being a shoot forwards within a 45 degree arc to shoot 360 degrees, something which is not allowed in the rules whereas choosing to give a model described as equipped with a Power Weapon a Power Axe is.

I was meaning turrets in general. Not turret mounting guns that are not turret mountable.

**pretre**

Yeah, Vindicators are hull mounted. So no go on the turret.

**juraigamer**

I am saddened that my Chaplin in terminator armor with his axe makes it forced to be a maul, but oh well, new vanilla codex on the horizon!

The power lance's seem fun, great for a white scars army.

**andrewm9**

So becuase GW only makes a model with 2 power swords, I can't make my own armed with whatever 2 power weapons I want? I strongly disagree. Creating your own models and modifying them within the rules is still part of this hobby.

**A Town Called Malus**

Therion wrote:
Jidmah wrote:I wonder how you'd all react if I stack 6 Turrets on top of each other on my battlewagon. Or mounti a vindicator cannon on a turret. Or model my orks to hold huge metal sheets to block LoS.

That's about as much creative modeling as providing models with no options for axes whatsoever with such weapons.

Creative modelling allows the players to break the rules of the game in many more ways than what you just described. That's why modelling for advantage is never allowed. Basically, the guideline is GW's official models if they exist. If they don't exist you're free to use more imagination. Conversions are always encouraged but not when they clearly give an advantage to the player. In the case of a conversion that is giving an advantage, the player usually refuses that advantage and 'counts' the model as the official model, whether that is variations in weaponry or a difference in shape or size. For example, if you convert a Hero to hold an ornate looking two-handed halberd, before you deploy you can remind your opponent that your Hero has in fact bought a Thunder Hammer but you converted it to look more interesting. Likewise, if you have a crouching Wraithlord under some camo nettings, you'll still allow your opponent to shoot the model 'as if' if it was a standard Wraithlord model that stands up.

Facts in this case are the following: GW makes models for Death Cult Assassins, and they're holding swords. The Codex doesn't give them any options and just says they're armed with two power weapons. The rulebook clearly says the following: "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 of power weapon it has: if it's a sword or a dagger, it's a power sword; if it's an axe or halberd, it's a power axe."

By looking at the models we see that they're armed with swords or daggers, meaning they're armed with power swords. Making your custom models different to the official models not only visually but gameplay wise is the very essence of modelling for advantage. Modelling for advantage is cheating.

The argument in the case of DCA having power axes or any mixture of weapons other than two power swords is unsupportable.

Yours truly, a guy who has played with Grey Knights for over a year.

And if someone cuts off one of the swords and puts an axe there instead it now has an axe and a sword.

Modelling for advantage in this sense is not cheating, it is making use of the new rules available to the unit.

**Polonius**

Therion wrote:
Facts in this case are the following: GW makes models for Death Cult Assassins, and they're holding swords. The Codex doesn't give them any options and just says they're armed with two power weapons. The rulebook clearly says the following: "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 of power weapon it has: if it's a sword or a dagger, it's a power sword; if it's an axe or halberd, it's a power axe."

By looking at the models we see that they're armed with swords or daggers, meaning they're armed with power swords. Making your custom models different to the official models not only visually but gameplay wise is the very essence of modelling for advantage. Modelling for advantage is cheating.

It says "look at the model." It does not say "look at the official model." GW isn't shy about telling people to use what's in the box (see 5th edition basing).

Any model made during 3rd-5th edition had axes, mauls, and swords more or less at random. You're basically arguing that DCAs can't do what any other unit can (take the power weapons they want) because of an aesthetic choice made by GW in 2000.

**IdentifyZero**

andrewm9 wrote:So becuase GW only makes a model with 2 power swords, I can't make my own armed with whatever 2 power weapons I want? I strongly disagree. Creating your own models and modifying them within the rules is still part of this hobby.

You can arm them with 2 of the same power weapon. The issue is using a sword and an axe on the model for example.

**Joe Mama**

Therion wrote:Basically, the guideline is GW's official models if they exist. If they don't exist you're free to use more imagination.

Wrong. GW tells us what legal wargear options are. We then model our units with those legal war gear options. A GK henchman Crusader has a power weapon as part of its wargear. Under the rules that can be a sword, a maul, an axe, a halberd or a stave. Do you disagree?

**Jidmah**

kirsanth wrote:
Jidmah wrote:There is no rule against me gluing them all on top of each other.

Other than the rules you mean?

"May take a single big gun" from page 102 (codex:Orks) disagrees with your premise.

Editing to add:
In fact, it proves you are wrong.

Maybe you check on what a big gun is before you call people being wrong?

Hint: Killkannons and Big shootaz aren't.

Oh, and please quote the rule which prevents me doing that.

Well, I suppose, but no differently than taking a combi-weapon from one kit and using it in another. Techinically, yes, my tactical sargeant is "modelled for advantage" now.

Modelling for advantage is usually meant when the dimensions or structure of a model are altered to take advantage of the fact that 40k is a model based game with LOS. Altering a models weapons to allow it to use different rules is converting, which is part of the hobby, and has been.

Modeling for advantage means changing the model for an in-game advantage.

Replacing a model clearly using a sword (even in its fluff) with an axe is changing the model to gain an advantage. GW is not telling you to use whichever weapon you want. GW is telling you to look at the model to figure out which weapon it has. It clearly has a sword.

**Joe Mama**

IdentifyZero wrote:
andrewm9 wrote:So becuase GW only makes a model with 2 power swords, I can't make my own armed with whatever 2 power weapons I want? I strongly disagree. Creating your own models and modifying them within the rules is still part of this hobby.

You can arm them with 2 of the same power weapon. The issue is using a sword and an axe on the model for example.

You just made a house rule and tried to pass it off as an official rule.

**Slinky**

andrewm9 wrote:So becuase GW only makes a model with 2 power swords, I can't make my own armed with whatever 2 power weapons I want? I strongly disagree. Creating your own models and modifying them within the rules is still part of this hobby.

I strongly agree with Andrew's strong disagreement.

Just because the "official" model has a sword (btw, note that one of those models only has one sword, not 2, so isn't WYSIWYG anyway), there is nothing preventing you from modelling a DCA with a sword and an axe.

This is clearly not cheating as the model would then have a sword and an axe, and the rules tell us to look at the model to determine PW type.

**A Town Called Malus**

IdentifyZero wrote:
andrewm9 wrote:So becuase GW only makes a model with 2 power swords, I can't make my own armed with whatever 2 power weapons I want? I strongly disagree. Creating your own models and modifying them within the rules is still part of this hobby.

You can arm them with 2 of the same power weapon. The issue is using a sword and an axe on the model for example.

Where do the rules explicitly state that a model armed with two power weapons must take two of the same type?

I don't want to hear any garbage about "modelling for advantage", I want to hear the passage, copied word for word out of the rulebook, which explicitly forbids a model being armed with two different power weapons.

**IdentifyZero**

Polonius wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
pretre wrote:
Jidmah wrote:I wonder how you'd all react if I stack 6 Turrets on top of each other on my battlewagon. Or mounti a vindicator cannon on a turret. Or model my orks to hold huge metal sheets to block LoS.

That's about as much creative modeling as providing models with no options for axes whatsoever with such weapons.

The difference is that none of those things you are listing are legal options for the models. The DCA model has the Wargear option '2 Power Weapons'. The rulebook says to figure out which weapon they have, look at the model. It's that simple.

If the rulebook said 'to figure how if a vindicator cannon has a turret or not, look at the model', you could totally pull it off.

Oh, the battlewagon lists a killkannon, a kannon, and up to four big shootaz. Those can all be found on turrets. There is no rule against me gluing them all on top of each other.

Using any weapons but those provided for your models just for the game-changing effect (which you all are) is clearly modeling for advantage.

Well, I suppose, but no differently than taking a combi-weapon from one kit and using it in another. Techinically, yes, my tactical sargeant is "modelled for advantage" now.

Modelling for advantage is usually meant when the dimensions or structure of a model are altered to take advantage of the fact that 40k is a model based game with LOS. Altering a models weapons to allow it to use different rules is converting, which is part of the hobby, and has been.

Your tactical sergeant example doesn't fit in with the DCA having a sword/axe. He is a unique upgrade unit that can pay for any wargear options listed in his entry and can in theory, have avariety of combinations of weapons without issue. Even most of the old sergeants going back to 2nd edition, only have 1 arm sculpted on for the reason of versatility.

I think the issue is, DCA/banshees and other units will now see an increase in MFA even if it seems like GW didn't intend people to be throwing axes, lances and mauls on them. Regardless, I have ZERO issue with changing both weapons, it's having two different weapons on a normal unit (squad member) with no penalty etc.. lol

**pretre**

Jidmah wrote:Replacing a model clearly using a sword (even in its fluff) with an axe is changing the model to gain an advantage. GW is not telling you to use whichever weapon you want. GW is telling you to look at the model to figure out which weapon it has. It clearly has a sword.

I converted my DCA from wyches. They do not clearly have swords. They clearly have a variety of weapons which I now need to classify as the different types of PW. That's perfectly legal.

**IdentifyZero**

Slinky wrote:
andrewm9 wrote:So becuase GW only makes a model with 2 power swords, I can't make my own armed with whatever 2 power weapons I want? I strongly disagree. Creating your own models and modifying them within the rules is still part of this hobby.

I strongly agree with Andrew's strong disagreement.

Just because the "official" model has a sword (btw, note that one of those models only has one sword, not 2, so isn't WYSIWYG anyway), there is nothing preventing you from modelling a DCA with a sword and an axe.

This is clearly not cheating as the model would then have a sword and an axe, and the rules tell us to look at the model to determine PW type.

The sculpts are also from several editions ago and were at one point not taken in squads....

**pretre**

IdentifyZero wrote:even if it seems like GW didn't intend people to be throwing axes, lances and mauls on them.

Why then did they make that an option? The rules seem to disagree with you.

**IdentifyZero**

pretre wrote:
Jidmah wrote:Replacing a model clearly using a sword (even in its fluff) with an axe is changing the model to gain an advantage. GW is not telling you to use whichever weapon you want. GW is telling you to look at the model to figure out which weapon it has. It clearly has a sword.

I converted my DCA from wyches. They do not clearly have swords. They clearly have a variety of weapons which I now need to classify as the different types of PW. That's perfectly legal.

Only if they are reasonably identifiable to your opponent. Most people are not going to feel a chain, whip or knife represents a power axe, sword, maul or lance.

**Therion**

It does not say "look at the official model." GW isn't shy about telling people to use what's in the box (see 5th edition basing).

Are you serious? You're saying I can make any unit or vehicle look like anything I like? So if I don't like my Monolith being so god damn big, I can make a custom Monolith that is smaller than a Necron Warrior for example? If I have a problem with my Land Raider Redeemer, I can glue the sponsons into the nose of the Land Raider so it's a easier to target with them? What else can I do? Am I allowed to make all my assault models crouching or lying down so that if there's terrain that normally blocks line of sight up to the waist of models, my models can't be seen at all? Am I allowed to attach 'extra armor' to the side of my Rhinos that blocks line of sight to my entire army behind them?

In short, you're saying that you're allowed (even encouraged to) model for your advantage in any way you like. Only my imagination is the limit, right?

Wrong. GW tells us what legal wargear options are.

We're still talking about DCA, right? You don't have any options. You have two power weapons. The rule says what to do when you have power weapons with no special rules. They tell you to look at the model. I've already linked the picture. If your model looks different and has an advantage because of it, you've modeled for advantage. Is this really so hard to understand?

**Polonius**

Jidmah wrote:[Modeling for advantage means changing the model for an in-game advantage.

Replacing a model clearly using a sword (even in its fluff) with an axe is changing the model to gain an advantage. GW is not telling you to use whichever weapon you want. GW is telling you to look at the model to figure out which weapon it has. It clearly has a sword.

Sure, that model does.

If you cut off a sword and add an ax, it now has a sword and an ax.

Which is a legal option for a model with a "power weapon."

I'm not sure why this is different than selecting any other wargear.

I mean, any unit in the game that could take "power weapons" now has options they didn't before. Why deny that option to one unit?

**kirsanth**

Jidmah wrote:Oh, and please quote the rule which prevents me doing that.

Now I get what you meant, I did misread you. You mean adding weapons the vehicle can take onto the turret another weapon can take?

I do not see why that would even relate to the discussion.

**pretre**

@Therion: The difference is that we are swapping out legal wargear choices. You are talking about changing the LOS profile, etc for advantage. There's a big difference.

**kirsanth**

Therion wrote:You have two power weapons. The rule says what to do when you have power weapons with no special rules. They tell you to look at the model. I've already linked the picture.

That is a picture of a model. Not the model in question, which the rules tell you to use.

**pretre**

Polonius wrote:
Jidmah wrote:[Modeling for advantage means changing the model for an in-game advantage.

Replacing a model clearly using a sword (even in its fluff) with an axe is changing the model to gain an advantage. GW is not telling you to use whichever weapon you want. GW is telling you to look at the model to figure out which weapon it has. It clearly has a sword.

Sure, that model does.

If you cut off a sword and add an ax, it now has a sword and an ax.

Which is a legal option for a model with a "power weapon."

I'm not sure why this is different than selecting any other wargear.

I mean, any unit in the game that could take "power weapons" now has options they didn't before. Why deny that option to one unit?

Exactly. I could take the captain from AOBR and change his sword to be an axe (another power weapon). Completely legal and largely the same thing.

People are confusing a rule (the new PW rules) they don't like with MFA.

**Jidmah**

pretre wrote:
Jidmah wrote:Replacing a model clearly using a sword (even in its fluff) with an axe is changing the model to gain an advantage. GW is not telling you to use whichever weapon you want. GW is telling you to look at the model to figure out which weapon it has. It clearly has a sword.

I converted my DCA from wyches. They do not clearly have swords. They clearly have a variety of weapons which I now need to classify as the different types of PW. That's perfectly legal.

Just like my orks don't get meltas from being converted from marines, your death cult assasins don't get power axes from being converted from witches.

pretre wrote:
IdentifyZero wrote:even if it seems like GW didn't intend people to be throwing axes, lances and mauls on them.

Why then did they make that an option? The rules seem to disagree with you.

Please quote the exact rule allowing you to freely choose which weapons you can equip. And please don't quote the one telling you to look at models which are made by citadel. Because "model" is defined in the very first sentence of the rules, excluding anything custom-built.

**Therion**

The difference is that we are swapping out legal wargear choices. You are talking about changing the LOS profile, etc for advantage. There's a big difference.

Why is there a difference? I'm modelling for advantage in any of the scenarios I listed. You know what modelling means, and you know what advantage means. I've already explained myself numerous times.

**kirsanth**

Jidmah wrote:Please quote the exact rule allowing you to freely choose which weapons you can equip.

Each codex is rather explicit about that.

**pretre**

Jidmah wrote:
pretre wrote:
Jidmah wrote:Replacing a model clearly using a sword (even in its fluff) with an axe is changing the model to gain an advantage. GW is not telling you to use whichever weapon you want. GW is telling you to look at the model to figure out which weapon it has. It clearly has a sword.

I converted my DCA from wyches. They do not clearly have swords. They clearly have a variety of weapons which I now need to classify as the different types of PW. That's perfectly legal.

Just like my orks don't get meltas from being converted from marines, your death cult assasins don't get power axes from being converted from witches.

That's because meltas aren't a legal choice for orks. Axes are for DCA.

pretre wrote:
IdentifyZero wrote:even if it seems like GW didn't intend people to be throwing axes, lances and mauls on them.

Why then did they make that an option? The rules seem to disagree with you.

Please quote the exact rule allowing you to freely choose which weapons you can equip. And please don't quote the one telling you to look at models which are made by citadel. Because "model" is defined in the very first sentence of the rules, excluding anything custom-built.

That is the one. I used legal citadel models to make my wyches in 5th ed.

Why are they suddenly illegal when the rules say to look at their weapons and determine what kind of PW they have? The rules don't say 'If your model doesn't have the same kind of weapon as the stock model, you need to switch it back'.

**kirsanth**

Do you guys claim MFA when ork player's paint their vehicles red? Or only the ones without red images on the website?

editing to add:
I have NEVER seen a red paint pot, of any variety, come with a vehicle.

**pretre**

Therion wrote:
The difference is that we are swapping out legal wargear choices. You are talking about changing the LOS profile, etc for advantage. There's a big difference.

Why is there a difference? I'm modelling for advantage in any of the scenarios I listed. You know what modelling means, and you know what advantage means. I've already explained myself numerous times.

Because me choosing legitimate wargear choices from my codex and modelling them is not MFA.

I am allowed 2 PW for any DCA model. The main rulebook says that PW come in multiple varieties based on the actual model. I am free to choose from those.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jidmah wrote: Because "model" is defined in the very first sentence of the rules, excluding anything custom-built.

Where?

The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer
40,000 are referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow. Models
represent a huge varietyof troops, from noble SpaceMarines
and brutal Orks to Warp-spawnedDaemons.

That's the first sentence of the rules and it doesn't exclude conversions from citadel miniatures.

**IdentifyZero**

kirsanth wrote:
Jidmah wrote:Please quote the exact rule allowing you to freely choose which weapons you can equip.
Each codex is rather explicit about that.

So is the rule which states you use whichever the model is armed with.

Stating again though, since some of the thicker headed people keep ignoring me; I'm against you modelling one of each weapon on your Death Cult Assassin. If you convert your own DCAs, you can model them whatever way you want, as long as they can be identified with the weapon, if you model them with two different weapons, you can figure out where I stand on this.

I agree with the posters stating the DCA model is armed how it is, there is no additional profile or rules intended. The FAQ doesn't say, feel free to make DCA armed with 1 of each type of weapon you want or use whatever you like to represent a power weapon of subtype x.

It's quite clear now. In 5th you could use a sword, axe, halberd, maul all as normal power weapons (forget GK force weapons) with no difference in rules. Many models have shipped with different options (some with axe some with sword etc...). If you want to swap out that weapon type for another sure.

What's going on here is just MFA to create an even more powerful unit that has the versatility and advantage of two separate weapons with different rules.