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.

Maige wrote: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?

From what I gather, it isn't that they have them, it's that it could be seen as a tiny step towards modeling for (important part) unfair advantage. Per IZ's arguements, it's possible to equip 10 DCA's with 1 axe and 1 sword each. Now, only at the cost of plastic and a little glue, you have a unit that can either kill termies or kill marines. It's a lot of flexibility for no extra cost. Some people don't see that too far removed from making a Vindicare Sniper who lays prone on the ground and has a 5 inch long gun. (which very clearly gives a LoS and a Gun Range advantage.)

Maige wrote: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?

I hadn't thought of that... Archon with "Powa Ax"!

Duuuuuuude!

Oh FETH! Hope I don't start off another storm!

Thunderfrog wrote:
From what I gather, it isn't that they have them, it's that it could be seen as a tiny step towards modeling for (important part) unfair advantage. Per IZ's arguements, it's possible to equip 10 DCA's with 1 axe and 1 sword each. Now, only at the cost of plastic and a little glue, you have a unit that can either kill termies or kill marines. It's a lot of flexibility for no extra cost. Some people don't see that too far removed from making a Vindicare Sniper who lays prone on the ground and has a 5 inch long gun. (which very clearly gives a LoS and a Gun Range advantage.)

See Underlined. Last week (before 6th edition) a unit of 10 DCA could have done that anyway. Now, you have a way so they still can do that for the same points.

Whether something is better or worse does not have any bearing on whether that change is legal and valid.

If you think this is wrong or right because of how it affects your army, please stop posting about this in rules debates.

True, but last week they wouldn't have had +1 strength or had access to stunning maults with +2 strength.

What happened in 5th isn't really important anymore.

Don't get me wrong, I get where your coming from and completely agree, but I was pointing out to Maige why people were making doomfaces.

The problem here, in my humble opinion, is that many people are arguing RAI. I think we can all agree that the RAW on what power weapons are and what a model has is a bit, well, janky. So, instead we're left with two camps:
A. Thinks what the model is known for carrying is what they carry and we base what it counts as off that.
B. Thinks that the power weapon rule allows for people to choose what power weapon their models carry.

I allign myself in camp B, because camp B just sounds fun. I like the idea of personally choosing what my models do and carry, and have the equivalent of 4 choices instead of 1 per model with a power weapon just adds a really neat element of customization. Sure, it may end up "broken", but this is how my play group has decided to play it until it is proven as such or FAQ-ed into camp-A's perspective.

Why can't we all be friends? :[

+1 for the B camp here as well, but mostly because I interpret the Power Weapon rules as indicating that you go by what the unit is modeled with.. and you the modeler, get to make that choice.

Thunderfrog wrote:True, but last week they wouldn't have had +1 strength or had access to stunning maults with +2 strength

Like the other guy said, it doesn't matter whether or not the change is better or worse, that has no bearing on the legality of it.

Also, you aren't even correct about this, 6th edition DCA with axes are still significantly worse than 5th edition DCA. To realistically hurt terminators they have to now swing at the slowest possible speed, slower than all terminators except for those with fists and hammers who are also at Initiative 1. Where before they could get all their armor ignoring hits in before every terminator in the game except GK ones with halberds. Now they will get hit back and surely be wiped out. Which is fine, they were pretty ridiculous before. DCA are still a glass cannon, same amount of glass, but the cannon has been shrunk down quite a bit.

whembly wrote:[

I hadn't thought of that... Archon with "Powa Ax"!

Duuuuuuude!

Oh FETH! Hope I don't start off another storm!

I actually went into detail a few posts back:



But my post was ignored within the raging debate. Point is any model that could duel wield in 5th was also MFA when they cut a weapon to put it on the opposing hand.

Maige wrote:Point is any model that could duel wield in 5th was also MFA when they cut a weapon to put it on the opposing hand.

The point is that the previous rules said the type of weapon did not matter - prior rules actually stated the different weapon types were the same - now the rules state that since you modeled variety you get variety.

That is NOT an advantage.
That is NOT a disadvantage.

That is the rules as written.

lucasbuffalo wrote:The problem here, in my humble opinion, is that many people are arguing RAI. I think we can all agree that the RAW on what power weapons are and what a model has is a bit, well, janky. So, instead we're left with two camps:
A. Thinks what the model is known for carrying is what they carry and we base what it counts as off that.
B. Thinks that the power weapon rule allows for people to choose what power weapon their models carry.

Camp A has serious issues with their argument. What is a Wolf Guard "known" for carrying? There are no GW models of wolf guard with power weapons for sale. When people aren't giving them fists, I've seen swords, butcher knives, maces, hatchets and all sorts of other things which count as power weapons. That's just one example out of dozens, if not 100s. Looking at other space marine sarges is sillier (tons of options, barely any 'known' models). Heck, using 'A' to model HQs makes even more ridiculous. There are only a couple of 'Rune Priests' but not nearly enough to have all the options one can put on a RP.

And to go down even more ridiculous territory, based on the answers to my questions, a super limited edition sculpt, never even sold, supposedly tells us what is the proper way to model a 'power weapon' for a specific model. This never sold item would restrict us from say, using a sword, since it had a halberd. Er, what? Or, if you prefer, a model that hasn't been sold for 20 years, which is the wrong size when compared to models of the current day, would also tell us how we have to model our power weapons. Yeah, sure thing there. With "logic" like that, I don't think we need to even bother with arguing anymore.

Why can't we all be friends? :[

Because.

Joe Mama wrote:

Thunderfrog wrote:True, but last week they wouldn't have had +1 strength or had access to stunning maults with +2 strength

Like the other guy said, it doesn't matter whether or not the change is better or worse, that has no bearing on the legality of it.

Also, you aren't even correct about this, 6th edition DCA with axes are still significantly worse than 5th edition DCA. To realistically hurt terminators they have to now swing at the slowest possible speed, slower than all terminators except for those with fists and hammers who are also at Initiative 1. Where before they could get all their armor ignoring hits in before every terminator in the game except GK ones with halberds. Now they will get hit back and surely be wiped out. Which is fine, they were pretty ridiculous before. DCA are still a glass cannon, same amount of glass, but the cannon has been shrunk down quite a bit.

Easy Joe. You've been fired up all night and consistantly trying to browbeat people.

I don't give a damn whether they are better or worse, nor do I feel it has any bearing on whether or not the loadout is legal. I know the legality isn't equal to effectiveness. It could be said that by your repeated attempts to point out they've gotten worse (which they have vs TEQ I believe) you seem to think their mini-nerf vs the troop type is evidence that they should be allowed to model 1 and 1 just to make up for what they've lost.

My point about the axes and mauls were to let ToBeWilly know that I didn't consider their abilities from last edition worth talking about, as this is 6th and not 5th. Also, before you try to jump all over me, note this post:

+1 for the B camp here as well, but mostly because I interpret the Power Weapon rules as indicating that you go by what the unit is modeled with.. and you the modeler, get to make that choice.

I agree with you, but I was simply explaining to Maige the relative viewpoints of those who didn't.

Let's not forget that while power weapons gained options (ax/maul/sword), this is in the context of an overall reduction in effectivness.

A weapon that, one week ago, was essentially AP2 is now only AP3. Being able to trade a poor mans (5th edition style) power weapon for a poor man's power fist seems like an even trade to me.

If the argument is that you only gain an advantage by modelling, I think it's because GW wants to compensate for the loss.

kirsanth wrote:The point is that the previous rules said the type of weapon did not matter - prior rules actually stated the different weapon types were the same - now the rules state that since you modeled variety you get variety.

That is NOT an advantage.
That is NOT a disadvantage.

That is the rules as written.

Well how do I put a Djin Blade on an Archon then? It is illustrated in the dex as a sort of cross between a Huskblade and Venom blade with a demonic visage on the hilt. It doesn't even exist in plastic form, you have to stylise your own.

Same deal with putting an Agonizer on a right hand. They don't exist, you have to chop up your own.

There are many examples of 'modelling variety' in order to get variety, even prior to 6th edition. Advantage is irrelevant, as you said.

Polonius wrote:Let's not forget that while power weapons gained options (ax/maul/sword), this is in the context of an overall reduction in effectivness.

A weapon that, one week ago, was essentially AP2 is now only AP3. Being able to trade a poor mans (5th edition style) power weapon for a poor man's power fist seems like an even trade to me.

If the argument is that you only gain an advantage by modelling, I think it's because GW wants to compensate for the loss.

That's actually a great statement...

Me being an DE player, initially we've been nerfed with the "power weapon" changes... in 5th, we had no problems against 2+ armour.

At least being able to use the Power Ax (as a poor man PF)... they'd have somewhat the same effectiveness as 5th.

Maige wrote:Well how do I put a Djin Blade on an Archon then? It is illustrated in the dex as a sort of cross between a Huskblade and Venom blade with a demonic visage on the hilt. It doesn't even exist in plastic form, you have to stylise your own.

Same deal with putting an Agonizer on a right hand. They don't exist, you have to chop up your own.

There are many examples of 'modelling variety' in order to get variety, even prior to 6th edition. Advantage is irrelevant, as you said.

1/3 of the useful units (UNITS not options) in my codex had not been made by GW until recent months.(bear in mind the release date is years ago)
I am not certain I should be the type you quote for this.

I have said "Model it, convert it, or create it" from the start.
I have not said that your mode is incorrect because I cannot find it on GW website, nor have I said that it is ok to swap an axe for one unit that has it as an option in its codex, but not another option that has it as an option in its codex. If the option is in the rules, you can use its rules - if GW has not made a model for every detail listed it has no bearing on the RAW.

Thunderfrog wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:Also, you aren't even correct about this, 6th edition DCA with axes are still significantly worse than 5th edition DCA. To realistically hurt terminators they have to now swing at the slowest possible speed, slower than all terminators except for those with fists and hammers who are also at Initiative 1. Where before they could get all their armor ignoring hits in before every terminator in the game except GK ones with halberds. Now they will get hit back and surely be wiped out. Which is fine, they were pretty ridiculous before. DCA are still a glass cannon, same amount of glass, but the cannon has been shrunk down quite a bit.

Easy Joe. You've been fired up all night and consistantly trying to browbeat people.

Dude, come on, you can't be that sensitive. You claimed, or at least strongly implied an axe / sword DCA was a big buff, when in fact compared to 5th edition DCA are still much worse even with the axe. I countered that argument with a... counter argument. Don't see why you had to pretend it was personal, or "browbeat"-ing. Gheesh.

Joe Mama wrote:

Thunderfrog wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:Also, you aren't even correct about this, 6th edition DCA with axes are still significantly worse than 5th edition DCA. To realistically hurt terminators they have to now swing at the slowest possible speed, slower than all terminators except for those with fists and hammers who are also at Initiative 1. Where before they could get all their armor ignoring hits in before every terminator in the game except GK ones with halberds. Now they will get hit back and surely be wiped out. Which is fine, they were pretty ridiculous before. DCA are still a glass cannon, same amount of glass, but the cannon has been shrunk down quite a bit.

Easy Joe. You've been fired up all night and consistantly trying to browbeat people.

Dude, come on, you can't be that sensitive. You claimed, or at least strongly implied an axe / sword DCA was a big buff, when in fact compared to 5th edition DCA are still much worse even with the axe. I countered that argument with a... counter argument. Don't see why you had to pretend it was personal, or "browbeat"-ing. Gheesh.

I said people.. not so much me. Your general tone has been pretty standoffish through this entire thread... just saying. Your internet voice booms loud and angry.

Thunderfrog wrote:Some people don't see that too far removed from making a Vindicare Sniper who lays prone on the ground and has a 5 inch long gun. (which very clearly gives a LoS and a Gun Range advantage.)

It gives him a cover advantage... it makes it harder for him to draw LOS to a target, and has no effect on weapon range as that works off the base...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thunderfrog wrote:True, but last week they wouldn't have had +1 strength or had access to stunning maults with +2 strength..

Sure, but last week they had power weapons...

by adding additonal GW wargear, equipment to my model it cannot be construed as MFA.

Every one of your arguments and hyperbolic statements includes the PHYSICAL change of a model, Which in turn affects the PHYSICAL aspect of the game.

smaller/larger models, disparity in weapon locations, LOS issues ALL revolve around the dimensions of said offending model. THAT is MFA, changing the model physically so that it affects the gameboard in a negative way.

by adding a different melee weapon to a hand to hand unit it does not influence the physical nature of the game board. it simply changes the game mechanics.

your arguing over apples and oranges, the real question is whether the rules should allow for divergent weapons, (which according to most they currently do) not whether it is MFA

your MFA standpoint is flawed

RegulusBlack wrote:the real question is whether the rules should allow for divergent weapons, (which according to most they currently do) not whether it is MFA

Precisely, and I think we've given some good examples of other forms of divergence which would be whenever you convert a model into something which is not on the box cover.

RegulusBlack, excellent post.

Regarding the whole illogical rants of MFA,

GW has set the points cost of power weapons to encompass all types of power weapons; maul/sword/staff/axe/etc. Ergo, if a power weapon costs 10pts it is then fact that a maul cost 10pts, a sword cost 10pts, a staff cost 10pts, and so on and so on. In otherwords, GW has taken the stance that all power weapons are equal in value now and therefore any combination of said power weapons are also thus equal in value.

So as to the matter of DCA and swapping in whatever power weapon combinations is desired, who are YOU to label it as MFA when the stance taken by GW is that all types of power weapons and subsequent power weapon combinations are of equal value as proven by them setting the value of all possible options as equal?

Here is my take.

Obviously at this point I think it is fair to state a few facts.

1: A model armed with a power maul and a power axe, by definition, is equipped with 2 power weapons. If your war gear lists 2 power weapons, then your model is legally WYSIWYG.

2: A model that comes with swords, that you model to instead have 2 other kinds of weapons, has been modeled for advantage. However, "MFA" applies to such a broad category of minis, including every mini that has used glue, that the continuum of modeling for advantage includes advantages that are basically still fair and those that are grossly unfair.

3: Thus, while a DCA can be WYSIWYG with a maul and axe at the same time, AND the DCA was modeled for advantage, consensus needs to be reached between players if it is fair or unfair. This is because the game is played with 2 players who must decide between themselves what is fair and unfair modeling, as the guides for modeling are not clear by any stretch.

So this leaves us at an impasse on an online forum, as we all constitute only 1 player in a 2 player game. Thus, while I may feel that modeling an axe and hammer is unfair, my opponent in a game may not... and only the 2 of us in that game can resolve the conflict. In the next game, with the next opponent, we will again have to resolve the same conflict--as the decision made in the first game (perhaps by d6 roll) is in no way binding.

For those that feel that modeling DCA differently is fine, would you have a problem with an opponent who changes the weapons on the model when he sees your list? What about in the middle of a game, after your last 2+ save model is dead? In both cases, WYSIWYG is still met in the regard that the model has 2 power weapons each time the kinds of power weapons change.

Obviously those examples are not related directly, they just try to illustrate my point that there is a line that we all have when it comes to 'fair' versus 'unfair.'

What about in a tourney? Can you change the kinds of weapons that a DCA has inbetween rounds, or would that be frowned upon? What if you change the composition of 2 different DCA units, but keep the total models the same (IE, change 1 unit of DCA from 5 axe/hammer with the 1 unit of DCA with dual swords so now 1 unit has 2 axe/hammers and the other has 3 axe hammers)

Basically, by making weapons have very real in game advantages, but not tying these weapons to an army list but instead vague model WYSIWYG notion, we have introduced a new issue into 40k. This IS a problem, regardless of the individual model in question (be it DCA or Banshee), because again how each of us feel about what is fair and unfair is very different, and the advantages of using the right kind of weapon can not be underestimated.

DevianID wrote:What about in a tourney? Can you change the kinds of weapons that a DCA has inbetween rounds, or would that be frowned upon? What if you change the composition of 2 different DCA units, but keep the total models the same (IE, change 1 unit of DCA from 5 axe/hammer with the 1 unit of DCA with dual swords so now 1 unit has 2 axe/hammers and the other has 3 axe hammers)

The rule tells us quite clearly this can be done, it tells us how to determine with which a model is equipped. I.e. we bend down and look at the model on the table. I'd argue that if the DCA were embarked in a transport, you'd only have to decide which model to set down when they disembark. Because then and only then can you you 'look at the model' itself.

Shandara, while you are not technically wrong that all the combos are WYSIWYG, that doesnt make it right... which was my point. After all, I get to see the models you are using when they are off the table, and if you pull out a tray of 50 different combos of DCA to represent a single unit of 10, with the express intent of using the best ones of those 50 depending on what units are outside the rhino when you disembark, I (and I expect others) will be calling that unfair modeling for advantage.

Now, if you told me when we started what they had and didnt change mid game, I would consider that more fair.

Most fair I think would be to not have 50 DCA that you pick from at the start of each game depending on who you are playing.

DevianID wrote:Shandara, while you are not technically wrong that all the combos are WYSIWYG, that doesnt make it right... which was my point. After all, I get to see the models you are using when they are off the table, and if you pull out a tray of 50 different combos of DCA to represent a single unit of 10, with the express intent of using the best ones of those 50 depending on what units are outside the rhino when you disembark, I (and I expect others) will be calling that unfair modeling for advantage.

Now, if you told me when we started what they had and didnt change mid game, I would consider that more fair.

Most fair I think would be to not have 50 DCA that you pick from at the start of each game depending on who you are playing.

Note I didn't qualify it as fair or unfair (personally I think it's unfair and unsportive), but it does seem supported by the rules as I read them.

Destrado wrote:

Jidmah wrote:
By using the 'eavy armor bits from the boyz sprue or nobz sprue (steel jaw, extra-spiky shoulders). If you fancy, you could even get the metal 'eavy armor bits. 

Yeah, but there isn't exactly anything to go by when we say 'Eavy Armour. Less so in the case of Boyz, but what you count as 'Eavy Armour I could very well assume were the Nobz with the Jaw and some larger shoulder pads, since the official, old metal Nobz with 'Eavy Armour resemble the AOBR nobz, and the latter are stated in the AOBR rulebook to have a 6+ save.

There are 'eavy armor pictures in our very codex. It's the same way you distinguish sluggas from shootaz from big shootaz. You compare them to the pictures in the codex.
I wouldn't pay too much attention to the AOBR rulebook, it also lists orks as not having furious charge. Besides, I don't think that AOBR have 'eavy armor. My 'ard nobz build from the boyz and nobz bits look a lot more bulky than them.
RAW a steeljaw even counts as boss pole (yeah, that's in the codex), but I have never seen anyone use it that way.

They don't come with axes, there isn't a single axe in the box or any Dark Eldar box for that matter :( Well, I'd have to tell you that there weren't axes that looked eldar-ish enough to me, so my Dark Eldar from the Twisted Rune use a heavier sword that is a lot more unwieldy and gives them +1 Str and AP2, at the cost of striking at I1, since the "swords" they use are better represented by the Power Axe rules.

For me the DCA is no different than someone buying a box of Grey Knights and equipping them with whatever is considered the best loadout (Four Halberds and a Hammer?). You're taking a unit and equipping it to suit a battlefield role. The difference being, Terminator Grey Knights have the options, at no cost, to exchange their Nemesis Sword for a Halberd or even the Daemon Hammer (which is basically a Power Fist!) - different wargear at the same points cost, and with much broader differences in gameplay that the miserly DCA having both a PSword and a PAxe.

Problem is, 40k is a permissive rulesset. You require permission for everything. Equipping a halberd on a grand master or a bike on a warboss(there is no model for that either) is explicitly permitted by your codex rules. In addition, GW also gives eplicit permission toplay with their models - if not a single Dark Eldar model has an axe, you have no permission to put axes on them, because you could never look at any stock model and find a power axe. They do provide you with models with power weapons, thus enabling to field the models you included in your army list. It is commonly accepted that your conversions or scatch-builds (or even out-of-print models) may not differ rules-wise from the original model. Just dig up a thread about old trukk or rhinos, you'll see what I mean.

I wouldn't let that heavy sword story fly, though. As someone playing the German equivalent of D&D a lot, I have heard and read way to much power-fluff about how your parents were an ork and an elf, abandoned you to be raised by ogres, then were captured as a slave and fought in arenas while going to magic college in your free time because your second-grade cousin is actually the Wizard of Oz. You see, that's perfectly viable story for a Warrior-Gladiator-Wizard with both ork and elf race boni as well as the ogre culture bonus. No offense, but someone with a good imagination can pretty much cook up decent fluff for things only the worst TFGs would try.

kirsanth wrote: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.

Apology accepted. I don't troll on forums, and I have no problem with admitting that I'm wrong, so yes I am serious. The amounts of trolling, snides and insults on this thread are really a dark hour for dakkadakka. At least someone has the courage to apologize for that. Thanks.

So it's entirely acceptable to field a mob of, say, 10 death company with power mauls? Stick a reclesiarch in for good measure and you have

50(!!) attacks on the charge at WS5, with re-rolls to hit (that's 44.4 hits by my reconning), then strength 6 [i]with re-rolls to wound[i]
That's 28.125 wounds on a bloodthirster, 43 wounds on MEQ.
In fact is there a single unit in the game that could withstand this? A 50 man blob squad I suppose, but they wouldn't get to strike back.

"HUR HUR HUR GW HAFF NURFED ASSAULT HUR HUR" grrr.

Sorry to ask what may seem to be an obvious question, but is there an MFA rule in the BRB? I couldn't find it, but it is a big book!

Sythica wrote:Sorry to ask what may seem to be an obvious question, but is there an MFA rule in the BRB? I couldn't find it, but it is a big book!

GW didn't think it nessesary to tell players "If your opponant models all his troops lying down so you can't see them, he's a dick and you shouldn't play him".
The internet has decided to interpret this as GW being stupid/naive and exploit it to its full advantage. This is why I won't play 40k with strangers