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.

Therion wrote:

Harping on MFA is basically against board rules though, unless I misread.

Yet the moderators themselves have partaken in the discussion and allowed this to go on for 12 pages when it was obvious from the start it was only going to be a last word contest, back patting and attempts of shout downing those who were putting forward reasonable arguments. The appearance of Polonius and his admittance that this is a question of MFA but should still be allowed save the discussion from becoming a total travesty. Frankly, there's no further need for this thread to be open. We've established the issues and agreed that MFA is a house rule and that the extent of allowable MFA depends from club to club, and that only time will tell if an universal interpretation of these rules manifests itself or not.

Correct. Neither did I report it. The reason I mention it is you are repeatedly breaking them here, and it would be a pity if someone DID complain - having people to debate with is the best part about YMDC.

The question was not posted as HWYPI, in which case your house rules have some bearing.

The rules themselves still do not agree with you however, so until then it is uninteresting you are waiting for universal acceptance.

Eldarain wrote:
It seems wrong to be able to give a unit tactical utility that wasn't intended when it's rules were written.

Yeah but this applies to a lot of things in 6th.

They could have very easily covered this in the FAQs if they intended to lock PWs. Its absence implies that anywhere a vague 'Power weapon' is mentioned, it can be modelled to fit any of the four types.

Seriously though, I guess Therions subtle tone shift and Polonius showcasing his ability to see two sides of an arguement have finally weeded through all the 1 sided grandstanding. It's going to either be a personal choice or an orginizational one, untill GW address that little tidbit.

Therion, if you would be so kind, it would be really good for the thread if you answered my questions, or more precisely, responded to my various scenarios with answers on whether or not a specific type of power weapon can be modeled (note that each numbered question is independent from the others):

1. What do I do with a guy I have to build, which there is no model for, which can take a power weapon? Cry in a corner in despair, because I am not permitted to give him ANY type of power weapon, since no model of the guy exists?

A. Assume he can be made from a kit, which has multiple types of power weapon options.
B. Assume he cannot be made from a kit.

2. What happens if a power weaponed model exists, but it has been out of circulation for 20 years (so it is no longer made), and it is also the wrong size compared to current infantry models of the exact same type (ie marine or guard). Do I have to use that model's power weapon type and do I have to make a model the same exact size? Or do I have to go to an auction and shell out $$$ to get that old model?

3. What if the powered weapon model is for sale, but only in Japan, and in fact was never for sale in my country? Must I use that specific power weapon type?

4. What if GW had a special super rare version of the powered weaponed model, with a different type of power weapon, where only 5 were made, and never sold to anyone, but given out as prizes. Can I use that wargear option? If yes, do I need to have one of the 5 super rare models, or can I scratch build one with the same power weapon type?

5. What if the super special rare versions were made, shown to everyone and well known, but then in a freak accident were destroyed by a meteor. That's right, a meteor, not a meteorite. They were never made again. They literally do not exist anymore, except perhaps, in our hearts. Can I use their wargear?

6. So a model exists, with a power weapon of a certain type. GW discontinues it and replaces it with a new model, with a power weapon of a different type. Which way can I model my dude? Both? Only the latter? Does it matter if I scratch build the guy or have one of the models in my possesion?

Thanks!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Maige wrote:They could have very easily covered this in the FAQs if they intended to lock PWs. Its absence implies that anywhere a vague 'Power weapon' is mentioned, it can be modelled to fit any of the four types.

Also, a few times in the FAQs they errated things to go from a specific type of power weapon, to just "power weapon."

Oh i agree, it is totally non-sensical! and the best part is, its exactly what you wrote too!

The post of yours i quoted totally proved that modelling any weapon/upgrade/etc on a model, which wasn't there before, is done so for an in game advantage. It's true i wont argue that.

I think my analogy was spot on. Changing weapons around is modelling for an advantage. whether its so a model has 2 different power weapons, or a different gun, or the multitude of other upgrades this fabulous game provides.

If you want my opinion or arguement whether its not modelling for advantage i'll give you that opinion.

By your definition, anytime someone alters a model, in any way, to make that model do more damage or gain an in game boon, which is totally allowed by the rules (where i agree, that for example DCA's can have 2 different PW's) or hell, to even exist, after all it is an advantage to you to actually have enough models to play, is MFA. I disagree wholeheartedly. I think doing that is within the spirit of the game, and although may be considered to be in the "more competitive" mindset is still 100% legal.

Modelling for advantage, to me, is when you physically alter the size or dimensions of a model to gain UNFAIR advantages. ex. making all your models in the prone position so that they cannot be seen, or will at least always be in cover. This is clearly not in the spirit of the game, and while the intent may not have even been malicious, it is still clearly MFA

And to add a question to JOEMAMA's list, although slightly different

So if a DCA with 2 different weapons is illegal, what about a character where i have the option of buying two PW's? Am i forced to do 2 of the same, do they have to be swords because that is what comes in the SM kits? can Dark angels do a maul and a sword because both are on the sprue, even though if i went by the codex my list would say " 2 powerweapons" ( which, btw, I would differentiate on my list due to the new PW rules)

And just because, apologies to both Jidmah and Therion. I really did not think you were serious when you said it was legal to swap the weapons for some models but not others, that is why I got so snarky.

kirsanth wrote:The rules themselves still do not agree with you however, so until then it is uninteresting you are waiting for universal acceptance.

You're incorrect because the house rules are just as important as the official rules. Why is that you say? Because every house and tournament I've been to has had them. You might consider some of them natural and to be expected but that means you've unconciously become so accustomed to all types of house rules and interpretations that you don't even think about them anymore. I've never played anywhere where blatant MFA like crouching Wraithlords and grot tanks and custom weapon positions was allowed despite it being a house rule. Smaller incidents of MFA might be allowed to the extent that they're not even thought of. Most of the hyperbole in this thread is purely theoretical.

And just because, apologies to both Jidmah and Therion. I really did not think you were serious when you said it was legal to swap the weapons for some models but not others, that is why I got so snarky.

No need to apologise to me atleast. I know YMDC can get heated. I hope you realise I never intended any offence either.

No.
Read "Power Weapons" again.

There are 4 types of power weapons - axes, swords, mauls, lances.

You HAVE to have one unless you power weapon has different rules - and if the model has an axe, the rules tell you to use the rules for axes.
That is fact.

Therion wrote:

kirsanth wrote:The rules themselves still do not agree with you however, so until then it is uninteresting you are waiting for universal acceptance.

You're incorrect because the house rules are just as important as the official rules. Why is that you say? Because every house and tournament I've been to has had them. You might consider some of them natural and to be expected but that means you've unconciously become so accustomed to all types of house rules and interpretations that you don't even think about them anymore. I've never played anywhere where blatant MFA like crouching Wraithlords and grot tanks and custom weapon positions was allowed despite it being a house rule. Smaller incidents of MFA might be allowed to the extent that they're not even thought of. Most of the hyperbole in this thread is purely theoretical.

A house rule does not belong in YMDC. This is strictly about the rules in the Official Codices and FAQs and the Official Rulebook and how they interact with each other and the models used to play the game.

A Town Called Malus wrote:
A house rule does not belong in YMDC.

That is something you need to bring up with the original poster of the thread and the moderators, not me. Every single page of this thread has been about MFA which is a house rule.

Thunderfrog wrote:Changing tack...

Suppose that GW does eventually say that a squad of DCA can model whatever the hell weapons they want on there and they are legit.. I could see a lot of headaches.

I have ..

4 with axe/sword
3 with maul/axe
1 with maul/stave
1 with sword/spear
1 with spear/axe

Yikes!

What Yikes?

The rules cover that situation; you decide which weapon to use, and you get the +1 attack for multiple CC weapons.

So in your example, if the unit is up against a unit of T7 Save 3+ models, they could all use Axes and Mauls(Maul and Staff are the same for the Power weapon Family BTW) to allow themselves to actually be capable of wounding. Then in another combat that game against some Ork Boyz, they could switch to their Lances and Swords.

The rules you are looking for are on page 51of the BRB under the heading "More than One Weapon"

Therion, since you are active and replying, it would really, *really* clarify your position if you could answer my questions above.

Therion wrote:No need to apologise to me atleast. I know YMDC can get heated. I hope you realise I never intended any offence either.

I am not apologetic for the debate! Just some of the random silly snark that was close to what I called you out on; I read back a few pages and I was not reading enough before hitting enter.


I have been laughing and reading through most of this.
I do not bother to disagree without at least reading the point - the assumptions get one more than the actual text.

Therion wrote: Most of the hyperbole in this thread is purely theoretical.

And yet when I offered a real world example in this thread, I was told to count them as swords, ignoring the fact that this breaks WYSIWYG.

Therion wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:
A house rule does not belong in YMDC.

That is something you need to bring up with the original poster of the thread and the moderators, not me. Every single page of this thread has been about MFA which is a house rule.

I suggest you re-read the OP

I wanted the YMDC denizen's take on this issue (it's sorta raging in the rumours 6ed FAQ thread).

Page 61, under power weapons.
"If a model's warger 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:.."


Let's take Eldar Banshee or Death Cult Assassins as example... its states they're armed with POWER WEAPONS...

So, could I replace the standard stock swords with an Axe to get the Axe's profile? (AP2, Int1)???

My gut feeling is "no"... as you should use what models were given to you when you bought the sprue...

Thoughts?

Nowhere is MFA mentioned. They are simply asking whether they could legally replace a models standard, generic "Power Weapon" with one which has different rules but is still under the mantle of being a "Power Weapon"

The last post on page 1 mentions MFA though!

Joe Mama wrote:Therion, if you would be so kind, it would be really good for the thread if you answered my questions, or more precisely, responded to my various scenarios with answers

Allright I'll do that Joe and then I have to get some sleep since it's near 4am here. I'm in no position to universally tell what you have to do, so I'll just tell you what I'd do in your scenarios.

What do I do with a guy I have to build, which there is no model for, which can take a power weapon?

If there is no official model available at all and we have no hint of what it should look like I'd just follow the game rules. For example, if GW had never made a model for Death Cult Assassins I would try to make my own scratch builds regular infantry sized and armed with any combination of two power weapons since even the background only tells us they are 'blades'. When Tervigons didn't have models people assumed they'll go on monster bases and usually made them Carnifex sized. This was very reasonable despite it being a case of following a house rule. Afterall by the official rules the players could've made the Tervigons nearly any shape or size.

What happens if a power weaponed model exists, but it has been out of circulation for 20 years (so it is no longer made), and it is also the wrong size compared to current infantry models of the exact same type (ie marine or guard). Do I have to use that model's power weapon type and do I have to make a model the same exact size? Or do I have to go to an auction and shell out $$$ to get that old model?

Jidmah's argument is that because the official model shows what weapons the unit should have you should model your custom model's weapons likewise. Never before 6th was this an issue at all. I'm now more on the side of Polonius that minor MFA can be allowed because it might not be considered unfair or unreasonable. Why my stance was firm on the subject is that the matter is a slippery slope and players often seek every advantage they can. Therefore I rather go against MFA of all types.

What if the powered weapon model is for sale, but only in Japan, and in fact was never for sale in my country? Must I use that specific power weapon type?

See previous.

What if GW had a special super rare version of the powered weaponed model, with a different type of power weapon, where only 5 were made, and never sold to anyone, but given out as prizes. Can I use that wargear option? If yes, do I need to have one of the 5 super rare models, or can I scratch build one with the same power weapon type?

See previous. Basically the argument is that you can scratch build your model to be of similar physical dimensions as the original model supplied by the parent company and armed with weapons that have the same in game effect.

What if the super special rare versions were made, shown to everyone and well known, but then in a freak accident were destroyed by a meteor. That's right, a meteor, not a meteorite. They were never made again. They literally do not exist anymore, except perhaps, in our hearts. Can I use their wargear?

See previous. You don't need to have access to these extinct models if we still know what they were armed with. I think you'll agree that this is an unlikely scenario though.

So a model exists, with a power weapon of a certain type. GW discontinues it and replaces it with a new model, with a power weapon of a different type. Which way can I model my dude? Both? Only the latter? Does it matter if I scratch build the guy or have one of the models in my possesion?

There would be a clear argument that the new version supersedes the old one. I however would allow either model's weaponry to be used because there is a clear precedent that the models can be armed that way. If you told me you aren't modelling for advantage I'd believe you, especially if there still was no word from GW about how these issues should be resolved.

Considering how many unanswered rulebook questions there are and how many people are claiming the new erratas need FAQs, we might get some new information in the near future.

Good night!

In a Sisters army, the standard veterans only come with a chain sword and a plasma pistol. It's not modeling for advantage if I clip off the chain sword, and add a power sword, and clip off the plasma pistol and add a bolt pistol, by a lot of defenitions in this thread, it would be considered cheating, because it's not the equipment that comes standard on the model, but it is allowed by their codex as a purchasable item. Same can be said with adding an Eviserator on a cannoness, her pack doesn't come with one, but if I want her to have one, I have to model it myself.

This is the exact same thing as clipping off 1 power sword on a DCA, and putting on a power Axe. They have 2 weapons, and training from the death cult, why can't they use two different weapons to varying effects? This is the same as when a Samurai uses 1 long blade and 1 short blade, both are used for different purposes and present a tactical advantage for the user. I believe this to be the same case here. As far as I see, if you don't try and wrap the wording around, and yell cheater everywhere, I don't see the reason where it says that this is not allowed, nor is it cheese or cheating, merely giving a tactical advantage to the user as intended.

I think the 6th edition codex for most armies will bring in stricter naming of weapons. I can see the term "power weapons" disappearing as this gives too much freedom and versatility in regards to a single units load out if not even eventually FAQ'd out because some specific lining from GW itself would be nice just to set these kinds of debates, that are more then likely happening everywhere aside.

Either way as codex's are redone I believe that people that altered there models may end up having to alter back, the eldar codex for an example when that is released they may and I think likely will find that it will be reinforced as to what power weapons exactly a banshee can use rather then it being left to the discretion of the owner.

That said there is a possibility with the way how wound allocation has changed now - not dependant on load outs any-more, that they may in fact keep things this way in which case some legit clarification must happen at some point.

Sasa0mg wrote:I think the 6th edition codex for most armies will bring in stricter naming of weapons. I can see the term "power weapons" disappearing as this gives too much freedom and versatility in regards to a single units load out if not even eventually FAQ'd out because some specific lining from GW itself would be nice just to set these kinds of debates, that are more then likely happening everywhere aside.

Again, this seems to be predicated on the idea that GW didn't intend for models to have free access to any of the power weapon variants.

What you're seeing as 'too much freedom' I'm seeing as a deliberate design feature.

insaniak wrote:

Sasa0mg wrote:I think the 6th edition codex for most armies will bring in stricter naming of weapons. I can see the term "power weapons" disappearing as this gives too much freedom and versatility in regards to a single units load out if not even eventually FAQ'd out because some specific lining from GW itself would be nice just to set these kinds of debates, that are more then likely happening everywhere aside.

Again, this seems to be predicated on the idea that GW didn't intend for models to have free access to any of the power weapon variants.

What you're seeing as 'too much freedom' I'm seeing as a deliberate design feature.

With the changes people have noted in FAQs (Power Sword in wargear selection being replaced with catch-all Power Weapon) I would agree with the cat over the lips here.

If they do stop using the term "Power Weapon" in wargear entries I imagine it'll be replaced with Power Sword/Power Axe/Power Maul/Power Spear all for the same points cost.

"look at the model" - what model? The one on the table in front of you, that may have been converted but is the appropriate size o=and on the correct base or the one on the GW page?

Looking at the GW web site for SM Commanders there are only two pictures one with some kind of pistol and a sword, the other with pistol and LC. Are they the only options we can build?

Can a SM Tactical squad only be equipped with 7 bolters, 1 ML, 1 flamer, and 1 bolt pistol and CCW? That's what the picture shows.

Also, the whole argument about MFA is grounded in a belief that most people reject: that any deviation from "official" models is somehow a problem.

The argument relies on the idea that only the official models that GW has released show the modeling options that should be followed, since in this case modelling dictates rules options.

The problem is that most people don't agree with that basic assumption. Most people find varying forms of "counts-as" to be perfectly fine. There are arguments being made here that even a simple weapon swap somehow makes a model counts as and therefore potentially suspect.

Unless I've completely misread the community, conversions along that order have always been encouraged (often with higher paint scores).

So, for people steeped in that culture, the idea that a model's weapon options be restricted to the GW models is foreign. I mean, we've always been able to replace a power sword with a power ax. Since the rules all seem (more or less) balanced, and since power weapons as a whole took a nerf, why not allow the most possible freedom?

I mean, you end up in a situation where, the best possible advantage a DCA player ends up with is a unit that's still not quite as good as it was a week ago.

Now, one reason I tend to avoid YMDC is because there is a certain personality type that tends to see all variances from their view of the rules with harsh contempt. Genuine rules issues are interesting to iron out, but what's frustrating is to see two people arguing when it is clear neither can really relate to the other.

Polonius wrote:I tend to avoid YMDC

That was my take away from that post and it made me sad.
The rest I agreed with as I read it, and still do, but . . . yea.



I think that the rest of your point is why I posted like a goon for a while in this thread as an odd correlation.
Everyone I have every met, read, or corresponded with about the hobby includes customizing models beyond the instructions in the box.
Asserting that is illegal seemed farcical on more levels than I can think.

I thought myself rather literal in interpretation, but now I am coming to wonder if I am (just?) getting old.
heh(?)

Well, YMDC is incredibly frustrating for me, due to my profession. We're in the business of resolving questions, not debating them. Absent a deciding body, I'm just arguing into a room.

I step away and my post just explodes!

I'd be interested in what the TO would rule on this...



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:Well, YMDC is incredibly frustrating for me, due to my profession. We're in the business of resolving questions, not debating them. Absent a deciding body, I'm just arguing into a room.

But you "making the case" for both sides of the equation was simply... awesome-sauce!

Kommissar Kel wrote:

Thunderfrog wrote:Changing tack...

Suppose that GW does eventually say that a squad of DCA can model whatever the hell weapons they want on there and they are legit.. I could see a lot of headaches.

I have ..

4 with axe/sword
3 with maul/axe
1 with maul/stave
1 with sword/spear
1 with spear/axe

Yikes!

What Yikes?

The rules cover that situation; you decide which weapon to use, and you get the +1 attack for multiple CC weapons.

So in your example, if the unit is up against a unit of T7 Save 3+ models, they could all use Axes and Mauls(Maul and Staff are the same for the Power weapon Family BTW) to allow themselves to actually be capable of wounding. Then in another combat that game against some Ork Boyz, they could switch to their Lances and Swords.

The rules you are looking for are on page 51of the BRB under the heading "More than One Weapon"

Thanks. Is nice to have such flexibility, unless it gets changed in a future FAQ.

Thunderfrog wrote:Thanks. Is nice to have such flexibility, until it gets changed in a future FAQ or codex.

I played with Carnifexes in 4e.
So, yes. Yes it is.

Heh. I think most of us are used to changing armies. (looks wistfully at his redemptionists)

It's very straight forward I think:

Codex says a model can take power weapons.
FAQs say a model can take power weapons.
Rulebook says there are 4 different categories of power weapons.
No where in any of the three does it put a regulation on those categories aside from WYSIWYG.

From a modelling point of view:
Most models/units have codex options which aren't available to them on the sprue.
Some of them have options which aren't even represented in the entire extended force.
Some of them have options which require you cut, glue and convert.

Why is having a DCA or an Archon with a 'Power Axe' such an aberration to the rules?