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.

Since only a small few kits even have an axe option but any army can use them yes you could mod them. Giving them one axe and one sword is kind of lame and broken and I would have you hit at imitative one if you wanted the extra attack. If you wanted some to have swords and other axes go ahead if you can mod them.

Hey look it is this thread again. Sigh

It is a legal weapon option and therefore is model-able. Just as all the other model options that have no existing unconverted model do.

Im also wondering when GW will be making a kit that is just 2 of each power weapon types so people can buy a ton of them.

Do they actually have 2 power weapons or do they have Power weapon and additional close combat weapon as it says on the GW website?

DCA? The codex gives them two power weapons.

nkelsch wrote:As soon as you convert something you enter into that area where you and your opponent have to agree on continuing the game.

You really don't.

If you convert a model so that its function changes (as in changing its LOS profile or its base) then yes, that would be the case. But swapping out a weapon for another legally allowed weapon doesn't fit into that. If a codex allows a model to take a weapon, and there is no model available with that weapon, no sane opponent is going to force you to stop playing while you discuss in committee whether the game should be allowed to continue with that model in play. It's just not going to happen.

Nothing says all power weapons can be anyweapons... just that they are what the model is visually equipped with.

Which is what allows them to be any weapon. The power weapon can be a sword, or an axe, or whatever. So you look at the model, and if it has an axe, it has an axe.

People are going to look at stock model options for what they are eligible for.

Which leads you to the lunacy of not allowing rifleman dreads, or Tactical Sergeants with storm bolters, or Razorbacks with anything other than lascannons or heavy bolters... or any one of a myriad other options not provided on the stock models.

I see only swords and sword-like weapons for DCA.

Yes... I notice you still haven't addressed the point that both DCA models are actually not legal under the current rules. So under your no-conversion policy, that ultimately just means that this isn't actually an issue, since nobody can actually use DCA right now anyway...

I have yet to see a SM Captain kit with an actual two-handed sword to represent a relic blade. That gives an advantage in str right? So giving one a 2h sword to actually represent this is illegal too then?

It's not MFA in any way. GW gives us the blanket statemeant of "power weapon" in the codex, then defines the different types of power weapons in the rule book. It then says to look at the model in question to determine what it has. Doesn't say "Look at the model as it came from the factory"

My generic squad veterans are capable of taking a "power weapon" There are only two models available for sisters. One with a power sword, one with a power maul. Is giving one a power axe suddenly modeling for advantage? Why would giving your squad sergeant one of the various "power weapons" be any different than giving another model the same option?

If I buy a space marine tactical squad, there are no axes in the basic tac squad box. Is giving one of them an axe modeling for advantage? GW is giving people choices here on purpose. And until a unit is FAQed to have a very specific weapon that option GW gave players SHOULD be used.

I shouldn't HAVE to give my tac marine sergeant a power sword just because I had to get my axe for the model somewhere else. The same should apply to other models including DC.

insaniak wrote:

nkelsch wrote:As soon as you convert something you enter into that area where you and your opponent have to agree on continuing the game.

You really don't.

If you convert a model so that its function changes (as in changing its LOS profile or its base) then yes, that would be the case. But swapping out a weapon for another legally allowed weapon doesn't fit into that. If a codex allows a model to take a weapon, and there is no model available with that weapon, no sane opponent is going to force you to stop playing while you discuss in committee whether the game should be allowed to continue with that model in play. It's just not going to happen.

Nothing says all power weapons can be anyweapons... just that they are what the model is visually equipped with.

Which is what allows them to be any weapon. The power weapon can be a sword, or an axe, or whatever. So you look at the model, and if it has an axe, it has an axe.

People are going to look at stock model options for what they are eligible for.

Which leads you to the lunacy of not allowing rifleman dreads, or Tactical Sergeants with storm bolters, or Razorbacks with anything other than lascannons or heavy bolters... or any one of a myriad other options not provided on the stock models.

I see only swords and sword-like weapons for DCA.

Yes... I notice you still haven't addressed the point that both DCA models are actually not legal under the current rules. So under your no-conversion policy, that ultimately just means that this isn't actually an issue, since nobody can actually use DCA right now anyway...

Except that GW has shown with LYNCHGUARD how they seem to handle this... by looking at what the stock models have and then specifying it. Otherwise if they intended all powerweapons to be anyweapons then Lynchguard would be running around with axes and mauls.

I think you are going to see GW tell us that relic axes are axes and Harlequins have swords... but they left the rules ambiguous. I feel like if they intended to allow all powerweapons to be anyweapons they would have written the rules that way opposed to relying on visual cues from GW models to determine. It was a lazy way to update 60 power weapons without writing out 60 individual erattas. (which will be the future result now.)

They could have said: "all models with power weapons may be equipped with any of the following:" but they didn't. People are just implying they said that which is not what the rules say. They do not have these choices in any armory or supported by any rules... just making conversions outside the rules to modify appearance to fulfill an ambiguous rule.

And DCA are legal the exact same way marines with no bolter modeled are legal... base weapons are implied the same way CCW/bolter/pistol are implied. And all I see are 'swords'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

IcedAnimals wrote:
I shouldn't HAVE to give my tac marine sergeant a power sword just because I had to get my axe for the model somewhere else. The same should apply to other models including DC.

Lynchguard have to give their models Swords because you would have to get axes elsewhere. They are restricted. Why shouldn't everyone else be equally restricted?

nkelsch wrote:Except that GW has shown with LYNCHGUARD how they seem to handle this... by looking at what the stock models have and then specifying it.

The difference being that they actually specified it. They wanted Lychguard to have swords, so they specified swords. They didn't for everyone else... In many cases, the specifically went the other way, and changed references to swords to the generic 'weapon'.

I feel like if they intended to allow all powerweapons to be anyweapons they would have written the rules that way ...

And the reason you're seeing people disagree with you is that many players feel that this is exactly what they did...

And DCA are legal the exact same way marines with no bolter modeled are legal... base weapons are implied the same way CCW/bolter/pistol are implied. And all I see are 'swords'.

DCA have two power weapons. You say we have to look at the base model to determine which power weapons the model has.

So we can see that one of the DCA has a single power sword. How do we determine what the second power weapon is?
The other DCA has two knives or swords, and no power weapons. How do we determine which power weapons it has?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:Lynchguard have to give their models Swords because you would have to get axes elsewhere. They are restricted. Why shouldn't everyone else be equally restricted?

Lychguard have to have swords because their rules specify that they have swords.

Everyone else is not so restricted because everyone else has access to power weapons (which can be swords axes, etc) rather than swords specifically.

Testify wrote:I wouldn't have a problem with it if it weren't for the huge amount of tailoring it permits.

Playing against orks? Army-wide power mauls.
Playing against MEQ? Army-wide power swords.
Playing against TEQ? Army-wide power axes.

Are we sure this isn't where the confusion is?

You can't just have "power weapons" equipped, and then during the game decide "this is a maul/sword/ax/lance." That is decided for you when you put together the model and then plop it down on the table. I suppose with magnetic arms you could tailor immediately before a game, but no moreso than any other tailoring options (and it wouldn't be possible/would be heavily frowned upon during multi-game sessions).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:
I think you are going to see GW tell us that relic axes are axes and Harlequins have swords... but they left the rules ambiguous. I feel like if they intended to allow all powerweapons to be anyweapons they would have written the rules that way opposed to relying on visual cues from GW models to determine. It was a lazy way to update 60 power weapons without writing out 60 individual erattas. (which will be the future result now.)

I'm not saying "all power weapons are any power weapons". I'm saying "all power weapons are whatever they look like, determined by the WYSIWYG representation created by you at the time of assembly, just like any other choice you made."

And DCA are legal the exact same way marines with no bolter modeled are legal... base weapons are implied the same way CCW/bolter/pistol are implied. And all I see are 'swords'.

So, if base weapons are implied, and a DCA's base weapons are "power weapons", what rules do you use? Please explain to me how you jump to swords. As has been pointed out several times, if we are going to be nitpicking, the only way to determine WHICH PW is used is to look at the model. "Looking at the model" is the opposite of "using what is implied".

Testify wrote:I wouldn't have a problem with it if it weren't for the huge amount of tailoring it permits.

Playing against orks? Army-wide power mauls.
Playing against MEQ? Army-wide power swords.
Playing against TEQ? Army-wide power axes.

So the magnetic arms on my Tyranid MCs and warriors is MFA?

Come to think of it my DA's also have magnetic arms for their special weapons.

My goodness I must be TFG.

Games Workshop, sense I've been playing at least, has encouraged gamers to kit bash models. They fully endorse gamers coming up with unique models...assuming the bits are all homegrown or GW derived. If I want to take a combination of bits from the Dark Eldar Wyche box and Assault Marine box to make a Deathcult Assassin with a power axe, that's perfectly legal. Anyone who says otherwise has missed something.

DeathReaper wrote:

DogOfWar wrote:Is it modeling for advantage? Sure.

No it is not modelling for advantage.

You are changing a model to give it wargear that it can legally have.

MFA would be modeling the DCA 1/2 inch tall claiming they are midgets then claiming 25% cover for being behind something that is 1/8th inch tall.

I disagree.

Any modeling that I do that isn't fall entirely under "the rule of cool" is, literally, modeling for advantage. That doesn't mean it's necessarily poor sportsmanship, however, especially if it's clearly legal.

I see it along the same lines as the word 'criticism'. It's not necessarily bad —in fact you often get positive criticism— but common use has given it a distinctly negative connotation.

This being said, negative MFA is hard to define exactly but, as Justice Stewart famously quoted, "I know it when I see it."

DoW

So uhm, to the naysayers in this post. My DCAs (from 5th ed, mind) are converted wyches with various weapons, many of which are non-sword-like, as their power weapons. Many look like axes, halberds, or some such. I converted wyches because no store in my country carries DCAs and aren't willing to special import them because no one buys them.

Are you saying that I now have a squad of DCAs that are now invalidated since they don't have power swords? Do I have to force myself to spend >$15 on 2 models, not inclusive of international shipping OR import taxes, and then have the same 2 models repeated like 15 times each in my entire army, simply because there's a GW model for it?

Not this again...

Yes, you can actually convert your models; there is even a section in the book which shows how to do that.

DogOfWar wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:No it is not modelling for advantage.

You are changing a model to give it wargear that it can legally have.

MFA would be modeling the DCA 1/2 inch tall claiming they are midgets then claiming 25% cover for being behind something that is 1/8th inch tall.

I disagree.

Any modeling that I do that isn't fall entirely under "the rule of cool" is, literally, modeling for advantage. That doesn't mean it's necessarily poor sportsmanship, however, especially if it's clearly legal.

MFA is Modelling to take advantage rules that were not intended to work in that way with your conversion. Be it a Different LoS on your vehicle's guns, a Smaller Profile than similar models to gain cover benefits, or hanging a chapter banner off of a Stormraven that is so bit it covers the rest of your army, and you claim the opponent does not have LoS to the models behind the banner.

Swapping a Tac Squad Sergeant's weapon for a Power Fist is legal and NOT MFA.

It is simply utilizing the options available to the army list.

The rules tell you that you can only use citadel models. The rules section gives no allowance to alter your models.

The permission to determine what weapon you are equipped with is by looking at the model; by default this can ONLY mean the default model provided by Citadel miniatures, which includes FW.

You have no permission to alter the model, meaning you have no permission to add an axe and then say "a hah! this model has an Axe!" and claim you get all the benefits.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The rules tell you that you can only use citadel models. The rules section gives no allowance to alter your models.

And that's fine as a purely academic argument. But as a practical answer to a rules question for a game like 40K, it's completely and utterly useless. Because the moment you try, with a straight face, to tell an opponent that he can't use a converted model because the rules only allow stock standard Citadel models, you're going to find yourself minus an opponent.

Even if you actually think it's technically the 'right' answer, it's not the answer that anyone in their right mind is going to try to apply on the table.


Conversions are required to accurately represent quite a large number of options throughout the various armies in the game. Whether the rules specifically allow them or not, people are going to carry on converting models to have those wargear options not currently available in the model range.


Really, the only argument I can see as being in any way valid for disallowing DCA's to change their power weapons is the simple fact that there is no good reason to not have two different weapons. It's exponentially better than having two swords, because it lets you tailor your attacks to the enemy at hand at the time. With that in mind it wouldn't surprise me, if GW do ever bother to FAQ it, for it to wind up limited to two of the same power weapon.

But that's not a rules argument, just a games design one.

GW need to fix this by errating what stats ex "power weapon" have in this edition.

Instead of letting people pick between ALL the power weapon variants -_-

LunaHound wrote:GW need to fix this by errating what stats ex "power weapon" have in this edition.

They did. They told us that the power weapon is whatever weapon type the model is holding.

All they need to 'fix' is to explain whether they actually meant that to mean that you choose and put the appropriate weapon on the model, or for you to be stuck with whatever the model came with out of the box.

And given the number of multi-part kits out there now with multiple weapon options, it shouldn't really be too hard to figure out which way that will go.

insaniak wrote:

LunaHound wrote:GW need to fix this by errating what stats ex "power weapon" have in this edition.

They did. They told us that the power weapon is whatever weapon type the model is holding.

Then wouldnt Lych Guard hyper phase sword be an axe?
are we talking about the name it has, or what functionality its supposed to have?

the phase sword looks choppy and 1 edged

DeathReaper wrote:

nkelsch wrote:It doesn't say you can modify the weapons, just look at what it has. Conversions are not allowed or supported by the rulebook.

To say otherwise is to say that Riflemen Dreadnoughts are not legal because the Dreadnought is not supplied with Autocannons in the box.

I was following you til this. the dreadnought specifically has that wargear as an UPGRADE not a "model me like this for no points and gain a benefit"
I see both sides but I just think you should go with what your sprue has and leave it at that. My .02

LunaHound wrote:[Then wouldnt Lych Guard hyper phase sword be an axe?

Since it's not an axe, no.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The rules tell you that you can only use citadel models. The rules section gives no allowance to alter your models.

The permission to determine what weapon you are equipped with is by looking at the model; by default this can ONLY mean the default model provided by Citadel miniatures, which includes FW.

You have no permission to alter the model, meaning you have no permission to add an axe and then say "a hah! this model has an Axe!" and claim you get all the benefits.

Are you saying that if WYSIWYG is meaningless?

If you cant model/convert your army then you cannot ever claim WYSIWYG, because there are many upgrades that GW simply does not make. or in some case like DCA's the model only has ONE weapon while its stats say it has two.

insaniak wrote:
All they need to 'fix' is to explain whether they actually meant that to mean that you choose and put the appropriate weapon on the model, or for you to be stuck with whatever the model came with out of the box.

And given the number of multi-part kits out there now with multiple weapon options, it shouldn't really be too hard to figure out which way that will go.

I don't think it is as easy as you think... I feel like a lot of the models which are static metal/finecast with a specific weapon loadout will be limited to what the model has. I feel like others like generic captains on Iguard and Space marines will be given all options.

Lynchguard has shown that they do not intend for all models to have any weapon and that even though you can convert the models it is still not acceptable in GW's eyes.

Right now, if someone converts it, I am going to go with it due to the effort of converting and rule of cool, but if you just say 'oh this unmodified DCA has a maul and an axe' then I am going to tell you to jump in a lake.

I simply wouldn't rush out and drop 150$ on new finecast models just to chop them up to give them plastic axes or whatever until GW clarifies this rule and decides if they actually meant to give every powerweapon the choice of any weapon, because if they intended that they could have easily said "you may equip someone with a power weapon of any of the following."

No, thats a strawman argument.

The point that I'm making is that, by default, you play with the basic model. If you want to convert it to obtain an advantage not otherwise given to you - by putting an Axe on something that comes with swords, as a pertinent example - then that is modelling for advantage.

The basis of the rules is: you play with the models as they are given to you. Conversions live and DIE by rule of cool - and once you step over into modelling for advantage, which this most definitely is, expect to be rebutted.

An axe and sword gives you unprecedented kiling power for a unit, able to hit at high init against MEQ and worse , denying them their armour, and at S5 init 1 against TEQs, denying them their armour

Insaniak - you missed the point i was making. The rules allow you to look at your model to determine the weapon it is armed with. It doesnt say you can convert that weapon so that, when you "look" at it, it is now armed with an axe and sword.

40k-noob wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:The rules tell you that you can only use citadel models. The rules section gives no allowance to alter your models.

The permission to determine what weapon you are equipped with is by looking at the model; by default this can ONLY mean the default model provided by Citadel miniatures, which includes FW.

You have no permission to alter the model, meaning you have no permission to add an axe and then say "a hah! this model has an Axe!" and claim you get all the benefits.

Are you saying that if WYSIWYG is meaningless?

If you can't model/convert your army then you cannot ever claim WYSIWYG, because there are many upgrades that GW simply does not make. or in some case like DCA's the model only has ONE weapon while its stats say it has two.

Rule of Cool is a fickle bitch. Conversions can be and often are invalid pretty much at any time. Live by converting, die by converting.

Every conversion carries the risk of being NOT-WYSIWYG, a bad Counts as, or Modeling for advantage. It can be invalidated at any time by an opponent refusing to play you or a event disqualifying your models. Usually it has to be extreme to get there, but when you boil it down, all conversions are 'opponents permission' and live and die via rule of cool the same way allowing proxies or any other rule is played.

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. 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.

This argument doesn't work. If the codex entry says power weapon, but not explicitly power sword or power axe, then how is choosing one or the other "changing" what it has? It doesn't have either until you choose it. If your interpretation prevails, then you could ALWAYS claim that your opponent was MFA.

"Hey man! That tactical squad seargent has a power sword, but the entry says power weapon. You modelled for advantage becasue you didn't make it an axe!"

No. If the codex entry says power weapon, then you are free to model it as an axe, sword, maul or lance as you see fit [i]including[/] converting it to something that wasn't in the model kit.

nkelsch wrote:Right now, if someone converts it, I am going to go with it due to the effort of converting and rule of cool, but if you just say 'oh this unmodified DCA has a maul and an axe' then I am going to tell you to jump in a lake.

I simply wouldn't rush out and drop 150$ on new finecast models just to chop them up to give them plastic axes or whatever until GW clarifies this rule and decides if they actually meant to give every powerweapon the choice of any weapon, because if they intended that they could have easily said "you may equip someone with a power weapon of any of the following."

A lot of us had wych DCA from 5th edition with a variety of weird weapons previously. I just swapped a couple around and standardized them when 6th hit. Currently I'm running 2xSword/Axe and 4xSword/Maul. Pics in my Gallery.