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.

Rules as published your wife must wear trousers. Well the developement team are asexual drones so I'd call it open to anyone.

I think the rules should have put a picture of women playing the game. Would be nice to see some more girls playing the game.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:There are numerous threads about this topic. Yes, it is legal, yes it is cheesy.

I think calling a Crusader with an axe 'cheesy' is a little harsh.

DCAs with one Power Maul/Power Axe and one Power Weapon is starting to get a bit iffy (what with the ability to switch out each turn), but I definitely wouldn't begrudge someone's Axe-wielding Crusader models.

DoW

Boss GreenNutz wrote:What if my wife wants to wear a dress when she games?Thinking of which if there are no females depicted playing the game in the rule book, are they allowed to play? Edit. Sure it does. The law(rules) say I may drive a blue or green car. If the dealer(gw) only sells green ones I have permission to paint one blue if I prefer that over only what is provided. Again I'll ask. If you can't are you legally allowed to field any of the weapon/war gear options pointed out in any of the above posts even though the rules allow it?

And again, a rule that tells you to look at a car to tell what color it is does nothing else. There may be other rules that allow you to paint the car, but the rule being discussed is not it. The rule that tells you to look at the weapon to determine what kind of weapon it is does nothing else then tell you what kind of weapon the model has. Its basically nothing more than a WYSIWYG rule specific to power weapons.

liturgies of blood wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:Pants mandatory!

Yea, going to need a Page reference for where this is stated...

See the examples of how to play a game in the first pages of the book? Are the guys wearing pants? An explicit example of wearing pants while playing a game. Nothing in the rules says you have a choice in the matter.

That's not in the section labelled rules, so doesn't apply.

Ghaz wrote:

Boss GreenNutz wrote:What if my wife wants to wear a dress when she games?Thinking of which if there are no females depicted playing the game in the rule book, are they allowed to play? Edit. Sure it does. The law(rules) say I may drive a blue or green car. If the dealer(gw) only sells green ones I have permission to paint one blue if I prefer that over only what is provided. Again I'll ask. If you can't are you legally allowed to field any of the weapon/war gear options pointed out in any of the above posts even though the rules allow it?

And again, a rule that tells you to look at a car to tell what color it is does nothing else. There may be other rules that allow you to paint the car, but the rule being discussed is not it. The rule that tells you to look at the weapon to determine what kind of weapon it is does nothing else then tell you what kind of weapon the model has. Its basically nothing more than a WYSIWYG rule specific to power weapons.

Also... new codex reprints, new codex releases and new FAQs are telling us some 'cars' may only be painted specific colors with the impending threat that almost all cars will have colors explicitly determined leaving many 'repainted' cars done in haste illegal to drive.

So you may get to enjoy your custom color for a month or so... or possibly forever... it is a crap shoot and your repainted car may be a waste of time and effort and money!

An after it is painted blue I look at it. What color do I see? I have now met alll requirements as they are written. Book says power weapon i look at a Crusader with an axe or maul and what do i see? Hint a power weapon.

Still wanting for you to answer the question if it is legal to field any of the units mentioned earlier. Would you mind?

And you still don't get it. You've not shown the rule that allows you to paint the car blue in the first place. Again, looking at the model to determine what kind of weapon it has is not carte blanche to model it however you like. It simply tells you what weapon the model has when you look at it, nothing more.

Quick question, can I put my pants back on now, or should I have never taken them off?

Ghaz wrote:And you still don't get it. You've not shown the rule that allows you to paint the car blue in the first place.

Do you seriously think that there is anything productive to be gained by that argument?


Regardless of what the rules do and don't say about conversions, it's accepted that models can be given the weapons that they are allowed by their army list entry. If you're playing somewhere that follows WYSIWYG, it is not only accepted but required.

Insisting that people need to show a rule allowing conversions is pointless in this discussion. Conversions (specifically in this case conversions done in order to equip models with a weapon allowed by their army list entry) are allowed, by popular convention if not by actual RAW.

Sure I have. The rule book says a power weapon has 4 types. You look at the model to determine which one it is. You do own a rule book and have the ability to read dont you?

So one more time since you must have inadvertently missed it the last few times. Is it legal to use any of the units listed in any of the above posts where boxes do not come with those unit options or a GW model has not yet been released. It is a simple yes/no question.

Did we determine that this was indeed a question about BT crusaders with power axes (and not land raider crusaders with power axe shooting cannons), because as has been stated previously the Black Templar upgrade pack comes with power swords and power axes.

No, it is about sob and gk crusaders.

zeshin wrote:...and not land raider crusaders with power axe shooting cannons...

Dammit, now I'm going to have to build one of those...

pretre wrote:No, it is about sob and gk crusaders.

Ahhhhh. Got it. Should have known no one plays BT in 6th.

I want a LRC that shoots kittens. But only really fluffy ones so they don't get hurt when they hit the target.

liturgies of blood wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

liturgies of blood wroteants mandatory!

Yea, going to need a Page reference for where this is stated...

See the examples of how to play a game in the first pages of the book? Are the guys wearing pants? An explicit example of wearing pants while playing a game. Nothing in the rules says you have a choice in the matter.

That's not in the section labelled rules, so doesn't apply.

while i found nothing in the BRB I did discover two references to pants wearing in the Apocalypse book
on both page 34 and page 70 one can clearly see GW endorsed gamers all wearing jeans therefore one can
only play this game wearing jeans. (blue preferred but black and grey also permitted)

better hope your opponent doesn’t bring genestealers...

insaniak wrote:Regardless of what the rules do and don't say about conversions, it's accepted that models can be given the weapons that they are allowed by their army list entry. If you're playing somewhere that follows WYSIWYG, it is not only accepted but required. Insisting that people need to show a rule allowing conversions is pointless in this discussion. Conversions (specifically in this case conversions done in order to equip models with a weapon allowed by their army list entry) are allowed, by popular convention if not by actual RAW.

Which once again, I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is the claims that the rules on page 61 support that position when they're mute on the matter. From page 61 of the rulebook:

If a model's wargear says it has a power weapon which has no further special rules, then look at the model to tell which type of power weapon it has.

That doesn't support either position. It no more supports or disproves either position than does the pile-in rules for close combat. They just don't say anything on the matter at all.

As for RAI, good thing is we have a FAQ that states are DCA supposed to have two power swords or two power weapons:

Sisters of Battle FAQ V1.0 wrote:
Errata: Options Change all references to[sic] "Power sword" to "Power weapon."

Obviously the first "to" should have been "from", but original spelling retained here for accuracy of the quote.

There's no way someone can argue that DCA are supposed to have two power swords after GW went and errata'd that restriction away from them from SOB.

Luide wrote:
There's no way someone can argue that DCA are supposed to have two power swords after GW went and errata'd that restriction away from them from SOB.

Well...there is. The rules don't say "If no power weapon is specified, players are free to model them however they fit".
Honestly this is one of the very few things about 6th that GW genuinely got wrong. We'll have to wait for the Chaos Codex to see what it's all about, from the rumours i've heard (so this could just be bs), the type of power weapon is specified rather than simply "power weapon". But as I say, that could be wrong.

So will the Chaos Codex say:
"Chaos Lords may take a power weapon for +20pts"
or
"Chaos Lords may take a power sword for +15pts, or power axe for +20pts"

Only time will tell.
Of course that won't settle the argument, but it will give us an indication of what GW were thinking when they wrote it.
Or it could be FAQed, which is unlikely.

Ghaz wrote:

insaniak wrote:Regardless of what the rules do and don't say about conversions, it's accepted that models can be given the weapons that they are allowed by their army list entry. If you're playing somewhere that follows WYSIWYG, it is not only accepted but required. Insisting that people need to show a rule allowing conversions is pointless in this discussion. Conversions (specifically in this case conversions done in order to equip models with a weapon allowed by their army list entry) are allowed, by popular convention if not by actual RAW.

Which once again, I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is the claims that the rules on page 61 support that position when they're mute on the matter. From page 61 of the rulebook:

If a model's wargear says it has a power weapon which has no further special rules, then look at the model to tell which type of power weapon it has.

That doesn't support either position. It no more supports or disproves either position than does the pile-in rules for close combat. They just don't say anything on the matter at all.

How is P.61 unclear?

Power weapons come in 4 varieties now.

Maul, Lance, Axe, and Sword.

They all have their advantages and disadvantages.

They are all legal options for models to take when buying a "Power Weapon"

Adding the proper weapon for the wargear you purchased is in line with WYSIWYG.

Saying that a unit that lists Power Weapon in its entry can not have a Power Axe because the model does not come with one is to say that Space Marine Tactical squads Must have a Missile Launcher as their Heavy Weapon, because that is the only option that comes with the Tactical Box. Which of course is incorrect.

Except the rules for tactical squads state that they're allowed to take a Missile Launcher. The rules do NOT say you're free to model power weapons as you see fit.


I'm not defending the rule, simply saying as it is - RAW you have to use the weapon it comes with, you're not given permission to use anything else.

RAW don't say anything about having to use the weapon it comes with, they merely say to look at the model. If you have converted it to give it an entirely legal weapon option, which in this case it would be, as the codex entry merely says power WEAPON as opposed to sword or axe, then looking at the model merely confirms that it has that weapon, and means that you then can't use it as something else. This may not be RAI, but it certainly is how it is currently written.

grrr

As above.

The rule is mute on whether you are allowed to model whatever you like - it just says you look at the model, and that tells you what the model is armed with.

Testify wrote:Except the rules for tactical squads state that they're allowed to take a Missile Launcher. The rules do NOT say you're free to model power weapons as you see fit.

The rules for DCA state I'm allowed to have 2 power weapons.
Find the restriction that they must be as GW models them.

I'm not defending the rule, simply saying as it is - RAW you have to use the weapon it comes with, you're not given permission to use anything else.

Cite the rule you're asserting exists please.

While we're on the topic, would you accept these as power axes on a crusader?

http://www.anvilindustry.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&path=60_88&product_id=144

I know that they are chain weapons, but various chain weapons have been powered in the past (DOWII's Gladius Of Tenacity, Gorechild, chainfists)

Testify wrote:I'm not defending the rule, simply saying as it is - RAW you have to use the weapon it comes with, you're not given permission to use anything else.

And the opposing position is that not only is that not RAW, because the option you are given is to use a weapon that can come in one of for different forms, but it's craziness that results in most models not being able top use all of their available options.

From purely a rules perspective, there is absolutely no difference between giving a Crusader a power axe and giving a Tactical Marine a multi melta.

Many people have butthurt over the power weapon debate, honestly I don't get it. PW's ignored all armor saves in 5th so making it I1 +1S AP2 is now somehow broke, it all seems ok to me.

4oursword wrote:While we're on the topic, would you accept these as power axes on a crusader?

http://www.anvilindustry.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&path=60_88&product_id=144

I know that they are chain weapons, but various chain weapons have been powered in the past (DOWII's Gladius Of Tenacity, Gorechild, chainfists)

Personally, I like to make sure my power weapons have a distinct color from all my other weapons (and that contrasts my army's paint scheme) and as long as they do that, I'm cool. So my eviscerators are normal colored but have lightning blue teeth. Most of my other pw are straight up lightning blue (for my SOB, which are painted red). This makes them clear on the tabletop. If you do that, you should be fine.

(As a contrast, my orks have bright red power weapons, my SW have lightning blue and my guard have a darker, but still light blue.)

insaniak wrote:
From purely a rules perspective, there is absolutely no difference between giving a Crusader a power axe and giving a Tactical Marine a multi melta.

Totally disagree. We can take a multi-melta due to explicit permission in the wargear option of the codex.

The CHOICE of a power weapon is IMPLIED by a unmoderated social convention and is not explicit int he rulebook. GW could have made it explicit by saying "any model with a power weapon may be equipped with any of the 4 following types" but they didn't say that. They said look at the model and we are using unwritten social convention that we are allowed to modify the models the same way as if it was a wargear option...

The problem is, this has been removed for weapon options whenever the weapon or model has a specific look or description. Necrons may not take a Hyperface maul, Marines may not take a Crozaruius axe. GW has decided for some options to actually lock down the weapon to what the 'model looks like' not 'model the weapon however you wish.'

There have been some that fell through the cracks like Runic axes and such but what is more likley? that a second round of FAQs will begin to lock down generic powerweapons into specific builds or that it will be every powerweapon is any powerweapon? We have seen how some units have been locked down, we will see how Chaos get's locked down if they remove the choice of POWER WEAPONS from the codex and explicitly grant specific weapon types. We also may see harlequins being locked into swords or something too.

Saying there is *NO DIFFERENCE* is not true... there very much is a difference because The rules say you may take a multimelta, the rules don't say you can't modify your model to have a power axe... So it is implied permission by a gaping hole which may be removed for some units at any time.

pretre wrote:

4oursword wrote:While we're on the topic, would you accept these as power axes on a crusader?

http://www.anvilindustry.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&path=60_88&product_id=144

I know that they are chain weapons, but various chain weapons have been powered in the past (DOWII's Gladius Of Tenacity, Gorechild, chainfists)

Personally, I like to make sure my power weapons have a distinct color from all my other weapons (and that contrasts my army's paint scheme) and as long as they do that, I'm cool. So my eviscerators are normal colored but have lightning blue teeth. Most of my other pw are straight up lightning blue (for my SOB, which are painted red). This makes them clear on the tabletop. If you do that, you should be fine.

(As a contrast, my orks have bright red power weapons, my SW have lightning blue and my guard have a darker, but still light blue.)

Awesome! Then I shall use them on my crusaders, along with AnvilIndusty's Riot Shields!