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.

 Kevin949 wrote:
Complain to GW about not adding in proper bits to their packs. Yes, I know berzerkers are melee oriented. Your point there?

And no, I'm not saying to not model them with something they can OBVIOUSLY take. I'm saying that for now you can model the berzerkers with whatever you want but that "might" change later on. I also don't see your point in your statement about weapons not found in the box...what does that matter? I don't get force weapons in my boxes but are you saying I can take them if I model them? Plain and simple, the way it is now they take whatever, the way it will probably be later on is either going to be specified melee weapons OR a "choose from the standard power weapons list at X points per weapon" approach.

You could give a model a force weapon, but you lack the rules to use it as such. On the other hand, I could take a Sergeant (since you seem to be hung up over the Berzerkers being old models, which shouldn't matter at all) with a power axe and use it as such, because there are rules that cover it.

I agree that units will probably start moving towards having a specific set of power weapons available, though. We'll just have to wait and see how that turns out.

coredump wrote:
And I will disagree.
The rules do say to look at the model. The rules do not say you may change the model to use whichever version you wish.
If the model you are using, comes with Power Swords, and you change it for Power Lances, you are modeling for an in-game advantage.
Some folks seem to think this is okay, because they seem to think the rule 'implies' that it is okay. I sure don't see that, otherwise it would say that.

This thread again?

When the rules say to look at the model, they don't mean look at the "model kit". They mean look at the model as it has been assembled by the owner. Therefore, the owner may assemble the model to have any legal power weapon option.

Constructing an army list is one of the funnest parts of the game. It's fun because you get to decide which options to use in your army. Why would you want to restrict the options that players have if the codex doesn't specifically make that restriction? If the codex says "power sword" but the FAQ changes that to say "power weapon" after 6th ed rolls out, then it's clear that they are giving you the option to model any legal option you want.

Yes - You can choose between the various power weapon options and convert your miniature appropriately.
No - it is not cheesy at all.

"Therefore, the owner may assemble the model to have any legal power weapon option"

Actually that is only implicit in this case, not explicit. WHich is the point.

Barfolomew wrote:
To expound on this topic, CSM terminators come with axes, a mace and some fists. No lightning claws and no swords. Thanks to the 6th rulebook, the terminators go from being armed with I4 power weapons to I1 power axes, which is pointless and redundant with power fists.

It's not exactly pointless. A power fist is a better weapon, but it also costs more points. So if you still want AP2, but don't want to pay extra for strength 8, then taking a power axe is still a good option.

But in any case, I can't think of a single GW kit that has the bits for every option allowed by the codex. In some cases you can't even buy the bits and you must do some conversion to make the option WYSIWYG. For example, a Razorback with lascannon and twin linked plasmagun. They've never even produced such a bit. If you want that option - and the codecies clearly say that you can take it - then you must convert it! This would be modelling to get an in game advantage right? But this example is certainly legal. You would be crazy to say it wasn't. Furthermore, this is only one example where converting your models to have options not provided in the model kit is both necessary and legal. I could probably think of 20 more examples. I really don't see how selecting your power weapon of choice and converting your model appropriately is any different.

And what's the big deal anyway? Each power weapon has a slight disadvantage to trade off for its slight advantage. Why make a big fuss over your opponent's particular choice?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"Therefore, the owner may assemble the model to have any legal power weapon option"

Actually that is only implicit in this case, not explicit. WHich is the point.

Come on...Let's not get into this again. If you want to only do RAW as explicitly written, then show me where it explicitly says I'm allowed to assemble my model kits. There is no explicit permission to assemble them, but only implicit permission. Therefore I can't. This is exactly the same logic you're using here.

Let's not re-hash all umpteen pages of that thread.

 Jstncloud wrote:

Not sure how 'cheesy' it is. Lances are a one turn weapon really, and Axes are initiative 1. Axes are useless, fists/hammers are better (although usually 10 more points or so) and the lances (as stated) are a one turn weapon after which they lose a bit of their effectiveness. I think it is nice to be able to utilize different weapons now, adds diversity.

Course, not all of us have access to fist/hammers. My IG Infantry Squad Sgts can have power weapons but not fists. For them, axes are a good thing, since I'm usually going last anyways.

nkelsch wrote:

It 'works' because it is implied we have a choice... but it also works because you LOOK AT THE MODEL. If you don't model it, it doesn't work. This is the rub because people are not actually giving models axes and are changing their power weapon every game, some between games in tourneys requiring TOs to explicitly define that a powerweapon is not an anyweapon. And yet... the people who are FOLLOWING THE RULES AS WRITTEN, "look at the model" are the ones being WAAC or powergamers when someone tries to proxy an axe as a sword because they think they have explicit permission to have any weapon type.

You do bring up a good point. Here is my interpretation;

If the codex says "power weapon", I think that you should be free to choose which power weapon the model will have (sword, axe, lance, maul). Then in order to be WYSIWYG, you must assemble the model appropriately. In particular, you must convert the miniature when the bits you've chosen are not provided with your model kit.

However, when you write up your army list you must say exactly what kind of power weapon the model has on your list. You must say power sword, or power axe or what have you. This will prevent you from changing your weapon between games of a tournament. I think this is identical to the situation for combi-weapons. My list has to say "combi-melta" or "combi-plasma" or "combi-flamer". I can't just write "combi-weapon" on my list and then change it around from game to game in a tournament.

For example, I model my wolf guard terminators with magnetic arms so that I can change their wargear and make different army lists without spending a kings ransom on boxes of terminators. But if my tournament list says that a particular miniature has a "comb-melta and power axe" then I can't suddenly swap magnetic arms on my second game to have a "combi-plasma and power sword".

Or how about the "kitbashing" portion of the rule book that shows you can do whatever you want to make an army yours. That right there reinforces the do whatever you want to a powerweapon. Chaos marines don't come with whf elf bits.

The bit that isnt in the "THE RULES" section of the book? You think thats a rule?

Nosferat, the game cannot exist without the rule or the hobby. They are integral to eachother and neither have any purpose without the other. Your continued insistence on the above argument is completely shallow and without any merit. In fact that stance actually creates more rules conflicts then it solves.

If they wanted you to be restricted in a loosely written rule as this one that has a +/- for whatever the choice you make in modeling, they would have stated it. Until a faq states I can't have power whatever I wants on models that can come with them as nonnamed powerweapons, then I can. I obviously can't change out Dantes ax, but I can change out Huron Blackhears "powerweapon"

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Nosferat, the game cannot exist without the rule or the hobby. They are integral to eachother and neither have any purpose without the other. Your continued insistence on the above argument is completely shallow and without any merit. In fact that stance actually creates more rules conflicts then it solves.

Without any merit? Tosh.

Theyre called THE RULES presumably because theyre the actual rules. Given you have no actual argument based on rules here, just insults, I wont respond further to you. Just correcting you so others arent taken in assuming you are right.

At no point on page 61 does it say look at the weapon the model came with. It states:
"Look at the model to tell which type of power weapon it has;(sic)"
As such it is the finished product they are talking about. No place does it state that it must be from the same package or even product line. You are adding rules that do not exist. When in the rule book in fact has no rules other than base size and scenic bases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For modeling that is

lostinthewarp wrote:
. I obviously can't change out Dantes ax, but I can change out Huron Blackhears "powerweapon"

Obviously? Then you missed the other threads where people are modifying Dante's axe to 'anything they want' and then the unclear definition of "Unique rules"="Anything but a USR" which means Dante's axe may or may not be a Unique power weapon as nothing in the rulebook clarifies how UNIQUE a rule needs to be before it makes the weapon AP3 Str-. It is by no means as obvious as people claim.

And I am sure hard-coded special characters are going to need to be locked down as special characters are usually not intended to be 'modified' or 'customized'. So giving models with a very specific look, fluff and locked in stone rules 'anything you want' is something that is going to ruffle people's feathers with this whole 'It doesn't say I can't convert!" in a permissive ruleset. If you convert Huron's axe then he isn't Huron anymore... or worse... you DON'T convert Huron but claim his powerweapon is something different and want to proxy it.

None of this conversion talk is supported by any rules anywhere... all rely on implied social convention, and the thing about social convention is when two people disagree, games don't happen.

nkelsch wrote:
And I am sure hard-coded special characters are going to need to be locked down as special characters are usually not intended to be 'modified' or 'customized'. So giving models with a very specific look, fluff and locked in stone rules 'anything you want' is something that is going to ruffle people's feathers with this whole 'It doesn't say I can't convert!" in a permissive ruleset. If you convert Huron's axe then he isn't Huron anymore...

How about if you put Marneus Calgar into Terminator Armour...?

or worse... you DON'T convert Huron but claim his powerweapon is something different and want to proxy it.

...which is ultimately no different to proxying anything else in the game...

None of this conversion talk is supported by any rules anywhere... all rely on implied social convention, and the thing about social convention is when two people disagree, games don't happen.

You know what else stops games from happening? Telling an opponent that their model can't use the power weapon that their rules allows them to take, because there wasn't one in the box...

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Nosferat, the game cannot exist without the rule or the hobby. They are integral to eachother and neither have any purpose without the other. Your continued insistence on the above argument is completely shallow and without any merit. In fact that stance actually creates more rules conflicts then it solves.

Without any merit? Tosh.

Theyre called THE RULES presumably because theyre the actual rules. Given you have no actual argument based on rules here, just insults, I wont respond further to you. Just correcting you so others arent taken in assuming you are right.

The rules are useless without the models as are the models useless without the rules. You can either accept that assembling and modeling wargear is as integral to the game as the rules or not play at all. That was the point I am making about your continued insistence that the rulebook does not support assembly or modeling of wargear.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Nosferat, the game cannot exist without the rule or the hobby. They are integral to eachother and neither have any purpose without the other. Your continued insistence on the above argument is completely shallow and without any merit. In fact that stance actually creates more rules conflicts then it solves.

Without any merit? Tosh.

Theyre called THE RULES presumably because theyre the actual rules. Given you have no actual argument based on rules here, just insults, I wont respond further to you. Just correcting you so others arent taken in assuming you are right.

The rules are useless without the models as are the models useless without the rules. You can either accept that assembling and modeling wargear is as integral to the game as the rules or not play at all. That was the point I am making about your continued insistence that the rulebook does not support assembly or modeling of wargear.

You're implying that 3rd party models/gear shouldn't be used, or that you cannot use GW models outside GW games.
Or that proxies/counts-as are somehow illegal.

nkelsch wrote:

 Jstncloud wrote:


Something like this typically comes down to who it is you are playing, I personally would have no problem with it so long as you did not have some models who 'had' axes and some with 'axes that were meant to be swords.' I think most people would be fine so long as there is minimized confusion, fact of the matter is many people enjoy playing and I for one wouldn't say 'No I won't play with you because this model here is spossed to have a sword but you modeled an Axe before 6th ed.' Goes without saying that some people WILL do that to you, but the casual/non-win-at-all-cost players will be fine.

Interesting... So now the rule only works based upon the models appearance... and that was translated into explicit permission to give any model any of the options. And now that we have convinced everyone we have explicit permission now we are back to 'I don't have to model it, just say it has whatever I want because it is a legal option.'

If you want to make up rules which are not in the rule book to allow permission to *CHOOSE* your weapon then turn around and claim to use proxy any powerweapon as any other power weapon...

It 'works' because it is implied we have a choice... but it also works because you LOOK AT THE MODEL. If you don't model it, it doesn't work. This is the rub because people are not actually giving models axes and are changing their power weapon every game, some between games in tourneys requiring TOs to explicitly define that a powerweapon is not an anyweapon. And yet... the people who are FOLLOWING THE RULES AS WRITTEN, "look at the model" are the ones being WAAC or powergamers when someone tries to proxy an axe as a sword because they think they have explicit permission to have any weapon type.

And there is a rule in the rule book stating that enjoying the game comes before everything else (or something to that effect) hence why house rules and various changes are allowed so long as those whom are player agree to them. What you've read from my post and chosen to bash on does not acknowledge the fact that this is a) my opinion and that b) the player has the ultimate choice. If you have a problem with someone using a count-as or proxy and they had brought it to your attention ahead of time (like they should) that is the time to state your concerns.

I have my opinion, you have yours, I really do enjoy WYSIWYG games but I realize that sometimes exceptions (for ME) can be made, for YOU this may be different. In the end if my allowance of a proxy here and there nets me more frequent games then so be it, if your strict interpretation of the rules leaves you sitting in the corner watching me play, then by all means, get mad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 don_mondo wrote:

 Jstncloud wrote:

Not sure how 'cheesy' it is. Lances are a one turn weapon really, and Axes are initiative 1. Axes are useless, fists/hammers are better (although usually 10 more points or so) and the lances (as stated) are a one turn weapon after which they lose a bit of their effectiveness. I think it is nice to be able to utilize different weapons now, adds diversity.

Course, not all of us have access to fist/hammers. My IG Infantry Squad Sgts can have power weapons but not fists. For them, axes are a good thing, since I'm usually going last anyways.

Good catch, the only reason I missed this is I use veterans over platoons and veteran sergeants have access to a fist, though str 5 hits vs str 6 hits makes me question paying more for a fist. Again, thanks for bringing this up, good fruit for thought considering I play IG as well as SM.

Here's an example of a situation that is *nearly* identical to this one and yet not at all controversial (as far as I know).

In all of the above posts, replace the words "power" weapon with "combi" weapon and see what happens.

My wolf guard are allowed to replace their bolt pistol for a combi-weapon and replace their CCW with a power weapon. Which flavor of combi weapon is it (melta, plasma or flamer)? Which flavor of power weapon is it (sword, axe, maul or lance)? The answer is whichever flavor I want, but then I have to model the miniature with the appropriate weapon to be WYSIWYG.

However, my box of Space Wolves doesn't come with any combi weapons. Does that mean I can't take combi-meltas or combi-flamers? No it doesn't. It just means that I have to make a conversion. So I'll have to convert some. But the box doesn't come with any flamers or meltaguns either, so does that mean I'm only allowed to take combi-plasmas because those are the only bits that come with the box?. Of course not. I am absolutely allowed to both choose which combi-weapon option I want and to model that option with bits from other model kits. Why should this be any different for power weapons?

If your codex says you can take a power WEAPON, then you get to pick what kind of weapon it is. You must state clearly in your army list which option you've chosen and model it on the miniature appropriately. This is the only interpretation that makes any sense because some boxes don't come with ANY options for power weapons even though the codex entry says that they can have one! Just like for combi-weapons.

Well looking at it, unless errata changes it, yup you can change dantes ax. It's just a powerweapon and in the codex it says you can make your own characters using special character rules, just name him something else and give him a backstory. So I was correct, you can't change his weapon, but you can make a counts as with his rules and a new mc pw. Ha! Winz.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
The rules are useless without the models as are the models useless without the rules. You can either accept that assembling and modeling wargear is as integral to the game as the rules or not play at all. That was the point I am making about your continued insistence that the rulebook does not support assembly or modeling of wargear.

No, that isnt my argument, at all. You missed it by a mile.

The point is that trying to claim rules exist outside of THE RULES section is an incredibly poor argument.

 Grugknuckle wrote:
My wolf guard are allowed to replace their bolt pistol for a combi-weapon and replace their CCW with a power weapon.

False.

The Army List entry says they're allowed to replace the BP/CCW with a "Combi-flamer, Combi-melta, or Combi-plasma" or a "power weapon". See how one of those things is not like the other?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
The rules are useless without the models as are the models useless without the rules. You can either accept that assembling and modeling wargear is as integral to the game as the rules or not play at all. That was the point I am making about your continued insistence that the rulebook does not support assembly or modeling of wargear.

No, that isnt my argument, at all. You missed it by a mile.

The point is that trying to claim rules exist outside of THE RULES section is an incredibly poor argument.

Please enlighten us with the section in "THE RULES" where it gives you permission to assemble and paint your models. You must have models to play the game, but there are no rules in "THE RULES" section that gives you permission to assemble those models....

Your interpretation leaves no way of assembling legal models.... Which is absolutely rediculous.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Grugknuckle wrote:
My wolf guard are allowed to replace their bolt pistol for a combi-weapon and replace their CCW with a power weapon.

False.

The Army List entry says they're allowed to replace the BP/CCW with a "Combi-flamer, Combi-melta, or Combi-plasma" or a "power weapon".

The point I'm making is that the box doesn't come with a combi-melta, combi-plasma or combi-flamer. But I AM allowed to take one. It has to be WYSIWYG - which means that if you want to know what kind of combi-weapon he has, you "look at the model". See how that's the same as the power weapon debate? You aren't required to take your power weapon as a power sword just because that is the only bit that came in the frickin' box! Otherwise, you would never be able take most options.

 BarBoBot wrote:

Please enlighten us with the section in "THE RULES" where it gives you permission to assemble and paint your models. You must have models to play the game, but there are no rules in "THE RULES" section that gives you permission to assemble those models....

Your interpretation leaves no way of assembling legal models.... Which is absolutely rediculous.

This exactly. They want you to interpret the phrase "look at the model" as look at the box art on the model kit. Heck the rules don't even give you permission to take the shrink wrap off of the box the model kit comes in, and since this is a permissive rule set you're not allowed to. Therefore we should be playing WH40K by measuring distances between boxes of tactical squads!

Use common sense. Look at the model means look at the assembled model and that means that you'll see the weapon option I chose to assemble it with. This is no different than modelling any other wargear option - it's just a statement of WYSIWYG.

 Grugknuckle wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Grugknuckle wrote:
My wolf guard are allowed to replace their bolt pistol for a combi-weapon and replace their CCW with a power weapon.

False.

The Army List entry says they're allowed to replace the BP/CCW with a "Combi-flamer, Combi-melta, or Combi-plasma" or a "power weapon".

The point I'm making is that the box doesn't come with a combi-melta, combi-plasma or combi-flamer. But I AM allowed to take one. It has to be WYSIWYG - which means that if you want to know what kind of combi-weapon he has, you "look at the model". See how that's the same as the power weapon debate? You aren't required to take your power weapon as a power sword just because that is the only bit that came in the frickin' box! Otherwise, you would never be able take most options.

The original poster asked about Sanguinary Guard. Sorry to say, but the entry in the Codex does not allow you to "buy a power weapon".

The Sanguinary Guard comes with a Glaive Encarmine, and this weapon has "additional special rules". It comes with the unique rule "Glaive Encarmine". This makes it an Unusual Power Weapon and AP3 + additional rules.

So this unique "Glaive Encarmine" rule, does what? Two Handed, Master Crafted, Power Weapon.

He's got a pistol, but the Glaive is two handed, no bonus attack. S4, AP3 striking at initiative. 1 reroll per turn.

OUCH.

Before you guys start getting out the clippers, read your Codex!

rigeld2 wrote:

Remember I'm arguing as a devils advocate here.

Fair enough.

There are no WYSIWYG rules in the rule book - so you're inserting that requirement.

There may not be any WYSIWYG requirements in the 6th ed rulebook, but I promise you that every tournament organizer will still make you play WYSIWYG. But in any case, the book says to "look at the model" to see what kind of power weapon it has. That is essentially WYSIWYG for power weapons. Look at the model and What do You See? That Is What kind of power weapon You Get.

EDIT: ...or have Got as the case may be.

You're required to write a Combi-flamer on your army list. Model it however you want - that model can't have anything else.
You're required to write a power weapon on your army list. Model it however you want - that model follows the rules for whats modeled.
Your box only has power swords? No power axes, mauls, or lances for you then.

I'm sorry, but anyone who actually insists that you build your models just like the box art has totally missed the point of Warhammer 40K. To be frank, I think that anyone who would suggest that you can't have a power axe just because the box the model came in didn't give you one is being a dick.

 Grugknuckle wrote:

There are no WYSIWYG rules in the rule book - so you're inserting that requirement.

There may not be any WYSIWYG requirements in the 6th ed rulebook, but I promise you that every tournament organizer will still make you play WYSIWYG.

Sure. But that's not a rule in the rulebook so you can't try and apply it universally and then say "Hey, I have to do this over here, so that must mean its okay to do it over there."

But in any case, the book says to "look at the model" to see what kind of power weapon it has. That is essentially WYSIWYG for power weapons. Look at the model and What do You See? That Is What kind of power weapon You Get.

EDIT: ...or have Got as the case may be.

Yes. For power weapons. You tried to use the Combi-* argument as the same thing. There's no rule talking about WYSIWYG for Combi-* weapons, therefore they aren't the same thing and can't be compared.

You're required to write a Combi-flamer on your army list. Model it however you want - that model can't have anything else.
You're required to write a power weapon on your army list. Model it however you want - that model follows the rules for whats modeled.
Your box only has power swords? No power axes, mauls, or lances for you then.

I'm sorry, but anyone who actually insists that you build your models just like the box art has totally missed the point of Warhammer 40K. To be frank, I think that anyone who would suggest that you can't have a power axe just because the box the model came in didn't give you one is being a dick.

So... no rules argument back, just accusations of "being a dick"? That's a stellar argument.
(note, I'm not offended by your statement, just observing)

We don't appear to be covering any new ground here, so I think it would be best to give this a rest for a while...