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.

I have to say this- though I don't have access to the 6e rules on power weapons so I will be the first to admit that the next statement can be taken with a grain of salt.

From a person who hasn't seen the new rules, with only reading the forums about he new power weapon split..... this current power-weapon situation sounds like an ungodly sloppy mess of nit-pickyness and munchkin-fu that will lead to constant arguments over what each player intended a weapon to be when they converted a figure, versus what their opponent "wants" each weapon to be.

For example- the new vs. old Incubi. The "official" standard for the squad are the new Incubi models, and their Klaives, while being giant swords, have their own special rule. Fine, perfect. Que the ensuing meeting at the game club:

Player 1: I have a squad of the new Incubi. But then I want to still use some of my old Incubi models because I spent good money on them. So I'm going to use one or two as other DE figures wielding power axes, because I think they look enough like axes to qualify (and don't look like "Klaives" so they should cause confusion) and they are still damn cool models.

Player 2: Nope, they have to be used as halberds, because that's what I think they look like. Not axes.

Player 1: Oh really? I come from the days when power axes came in both one-and two-handed varieties. And it's a big chopping blade on a stick- one that's clearly listed on my army roster as an "axe".

Player 2: Hmm.... wait, they are the "old Incubi" so would fall under the rules for the new Incubi so their weapons can't be used to represent anything other than Klaives. So you can't use them as any kind of power weapon, actually. Hah, got you there!

Player 3: What..........what if I want to use an old Incubi model in my Eldar army to represent an Autarch with Mandiblasters and an power axe?

Players 1, and 2: Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu.................

Like I said. Ugh.

I have to say this- though I don't have access to the 6e rules on power weapons so I will be the first to admit that the next statement can be taken with a grain of salt.

It doesn't even have a leg to stand up on, Klaives are described in the book as their weapons.

If used to represent an autarch with a power axe? Quite fine, it just all depends on what you use it as.

It doesn't even have a leg to stand up on, Klaives are described in the book as their weapons.

Except where one edition of the models clearly have power axe-shaped weapons, and the new models are clearly some sort of chunky sword.

The whole problem with the power weapons rules are that they were clearly written with well-distinguished variants of Imperial Power weapon types in mind, while the other races have to muddle along through nit-pick land because their models are less defined. Furthermore, it's a rule that is completely up to the interpretation of one player to another, which is a horrible nebulous thing to judge by.

For instance, the current Techmarine and techpriest models would have nearly all players calling their weapons power axes. But an old Incubi "Punisher" looks like the exact same design, but players are insisting it can't be.

AegisGrimm wrote:

It doesn't even have a leg to stand up on, Klaives are described in the book as their weapons.

Except where one edition of the models clearly have power axe-shaped weapons, and the new models are clearly some sort of chunky sword.

The whole problem with the power weapons rules are that they were clearly written with well-distinguished variants of Imperial Power weapon types in mind, while the other races have to muddle along through nit-pick land because their models are less defined. Furthermore, it's a rule that is completely up to the interpretation of one player to another, which is a horrible nebulous thing to judge by.

For instance, the current Techmarine and techpriest models would have nearly all players calling their weapons power axes. But an old Incubi "Punisher" looks like the exact same design, but players are insisting it can't be.

If the model is being used as an incubi, his weapons will reflect that fact, if there is a FAQ calling it a specific weapon, it is a specific weapon, unless options include otherwise. If there's a specific rule dictating what it is, it is that. It could be a dinky little knife the size of his finger, but it will be counted as the incubi weapon. And if it's a special weapon with no FAQ rule, but has special unique rules? (Relic blades) It would be an Unusual Power Weapon, which has AP3

If the model is being used as an autarch, the models weapon will be counted as a Power Axe, by WYSIWYG rule, unless he has another weapon to represent what power weapon you are going for.

Yeah, I don't think that's an argument at all. You're using old models to represent a unit in the current codex. You use the rules in the new codex, period.

Klaives add +1 to the user's strength. They are unusual power weapons. AP 3. End of discussion.

Foo wrote:Yeah, I don't think that's an argument at all. You're using old models to represent a unit in the current codex. You use the rules in the new codex, period.

Very true. It gets ludicrous otherwise. But could be very profitable on eBay.

"Incubi have glaives that give +1 S and are AP 3. Unless you have the old, rare incubus miniature that was a limited edition on WD #95, in which case its weapon is an AP 2, S6 weapon that strikes at regular initiative and ignores invulnerable saves!"

As for the disagreement of type, what you buy is what you get (wybiwyg hey, new acronym). For example, if I bought my model an electro whip, but used a yellow agoniser to represent it, then its an electrowhip, not an agonizer. If a person wrote specifically in their list Power Ax, then the opponent has no argument. The arguement if its not in the list is:
a) they are WAAC or a person who really likes to win and will do anything in their power to win
b) someone who's afraid that your tooling (ax vs meq, lance vs horde in the incubi proxy case)
long story short, put it in your list, your opponents arguements have no basis


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sephyr wrote:

Foo wrote:Yeah, I don't think that's an argument at all. You're using old models to represent a unit in the current codex. You use the rules in the new codex, period.

Very true. It gets ludicrous otherwise. But could be very profitable on eBay.

"Incubi have glaives that give +1 S and are AP 3. Unless you have the old, rare incubus miniature that was a limited edition on WD #95, in which case its weapon is an AP 2, S6 weapon that strikes at regular initiative and ignores invulnerable saves!"

Wouldn't it be awesome if they released a limited edition special character? It be a great reward to those who have been in the hobby for years vs those who just started :3

quilava1 wrote:As for the disagreement of type, what you buy is what you get (wybiwyg hey, new acronym). For example, if I bought my model an electro whip, but used a yellow agoniser to represent it, then its an electrowhip, not an agonizer. If a person wrote specifically in their list Power Ax, then the opponent has no argument. The arguement if its not in the list is:
a) they are WAAC or a person who really likes to win and will do anything in their power to win
b) someone who's afraid that your tooling (ax vs meq, lance vs horde in the incubi proxy case)
long story short, put it in your list, your opponents arguements have no basis

Except that a Codex currently only gives you the option to take a 'power weapon' and the type of weapon is defined not by what is written in your army list (which would be power weapon anyway as that is the wargear choice) but what is on the model.

I couldn't stick a power sword on a Chaos Terminator and write down in my list that it's an axe.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

quilava1 wrote:As for the disagreement of type, what you buy is what you get (wybiwyg hey, new acronym). For example, if I bought my model an electro whip, but used a yellow agoniser to represent it, then its an electrowhip, not an agonizer. If a person wrote specifically in their list Power Ax, then the opponent has no argument. The arguement if its not in the list is:
a) they are WAAC or a person who really likes to win and will do anything in their power to win
b) someone who's afraid that your tooling (ax vs meq, lance vs horde in the incubi proxy case)
long story short, put it in your list, your opponents arguements have no basis

Except that a Codex currently only gives you the option to take a 'power weapon' and the type of weapon is defined not by what is written in your army list (which would be power weapon anyway as that is the wargear choice) but what is on the model.

I couldn't stick a power sword on a Chaos Terminator and write down in my list that it's an axe.

Well of course wysiwyg still aplies, I'm just saying for those odd weapons (the old incubi being used as a power ax sybarite) it wouldn't hurt. And if your termie has a power ax, why not write down power ax. makes life much easier.

Yeah, I don't think that's an argument at all. You're using old models to represent a unit in the current codex. You use the rules in the new codex, period.

Actually, my words are just being twisted around to the extreme to make me wrong. I never even once said I wanted the old Incubi to represent the new models so I could justify their design for making the Klaives count as "axes". The current rules for Incubi give them a set weapon completely separate from the variations that can exist within the 'power weapons" strata. I totally agree with that.

I'm talking about how "power weapons" are such a ludicrous rule that allows people I'm playing against to say, for instance, that I can't use an old Incubi model with a Punisher as a "power axe" armed Sybarite under the guise of the following reasons:

A: the new Incubi models have weapons with rules separate from power weapons, thus making the old models count under this rule, too. Even if they aren't being used in the place of modern Incubi and they are of a completely different design, their weapons can ever be used as anything but that.

B: Because my opponent doesn't think they look enough like "axes", I can't use them as such, even if I intend them as that.

It'd be like a rule saying that an opponent can stop me from using a lightning clawed figure because I didn't use their vision of what that lightning claw should look like. The power weapon rule seems to be a rule that's hugely open to interpretation by a player's opponent.

I completely understand if a unit is listed in the Codex as always having power swords, or power lances. But I'm saying that the power-weapon rules should be able to make a conversion my choice as to whether it's a lance, axe, mace, or sword.

Well of course wysiwyg still aplies, I'm just saying for those odd weapons (the old incubi being used as a power ax sybarite) it wouldn't hurt. And if your termie has a power ax, why not write down power ax. makes life much easier.

Exactly. If I want to call my powered Egyptian-style scythe on a terminator Sgt. a power axe, it should be my call. Not my opponents.

I don't think those hypotheticals really help much, though. If you're using anything as a "counts as", then what it looks like really doesn't matter, does it? I can use a toothpick in a grape to count as Asdrubael Vect. Once we've decided that's what he's subbing for, that's what he is.

If an opponent is trying to argue that your counts as can't count as something because it looks like something else, then I guess you just have to use something else entirely or chalk it up to a buttwash opponent.

What I'm saying is: at the beginning of the match, you explain what your guys are and what wargear they've purchased. That's what that stuff is. If your opponent doesn't object to your legally-made list then, they've not got much of a leg to stand on once the game's going.

I don't think those hypotheticals really help much, though. If you're using anything as a "counts as", then what it looks like really doesn't matter, does it? I can use a toothpick in a grape to count as Asdrubael Vect. Once we've decided that's what he's subbing for, that's what he is.

To be nitpicky, that's not counts-as, that's proxying. Counts-as requires modelling to represent a model(s) with another that's been converted into a close approximation of the existing troop type. (I.e. Shining Spears represented by using Dark Eldar jetbikes armed with shuriken catapults and with Dark Elf cold one lances on the riders.)

That's the one thing I liked about "power weapons" as the general term in 3-5 editions, even if it was really bland compared to the variety of 2e. I could stylistically do anything I wanted, and that was that. As long as it wasn't a chain-weapon, or a basic hand weapon, or something like that, it could represent a power weapon.

The current way of seperating power weapons into types is all well and good if there are suitable easy ways to do so for an army. If I can remember right, Eldar have about two choices of power axes that will look suitably Eldar. One is from the 2e Howling Banshee with a laspistol and power axe, and the other is the axe bit off of the Phoenix Lord Fuegan model. Other than that, it's a lot of work.

It would be really cool if GW released plastic sprues of weapons themed for each army, even if they were Direct-Only. they could have several types of each kind of power weapon, etc.

Fair enough. I basically treat counts-as and proxying as the same thing.

AegisGrimm wrote:

I don't think those hypotheticals really help much, though. If you're using anything as a "counts as", then what it looks like really doesn't matter, does it? I can use a toothpick in a grape to count as Asdrubael Vect. Once we've decided that's what he's subbing for, that's what he is.

To be nitpicky, that's not counts-as, that's proxying. Counts-as requires modelling to represent a model(s) with another that's been converted into a close approximation of the existing troop type. (I.e. Shining Spears represented by using Dark Eldar jetbikes armed with shuriken catapults and with Dark Elf cold one lances on the riders.)

That's the one thing I liked about "power weapons" as the general term in 3-5 editions, even if it was really bland compared to the variety of 2e. I could stylistically do anything I wanted, and that was that. As long as it wasn't a chain-weapon, or a basic hand weapon, or something like that, it could represent a power weapon.

The current way of seperating power weapons into types is all well and good if there are suitable easy ways to do so for an army. If I can remember right, Eldar have about two choices of power axes that will look suitably Eldar. One is from the 2e Howling Banshee with a laspistol and power axe, and the other is the axe bit off of the Phoenix Lord Fuegan model. Other than that, it's a lot of work.

It would be really cool if GW released plastic sprues of weapons themed for each army, even if they were Direct-Only. they could have several types of each kind of power weapon, etc.

Cool Idea, Could be like the squadron command set (though does anyone even use that?) but could have a nice selection of weapons.
Space Marines Could Have a Mix of swords, axs, maybe some mauls and a fist.
Eldar would be swords, spears, an ax maybe (they just don't seem very eldarish)
Tau could...wait, tau can't take power weapons

So I guess we know how this all worked out now. AP2 Klaives for Incubi!

Oh come on! Don't dig this up...!

...but I agree it's an awesome day to be DE.

I thought it'd be nice to have the resolution definitively in one place!

...and husk blades are AP2 and cause instant death.

This is a shot in the arm of DE close combat, to be sure. Archin get an feasible AP2 weapon, and Incubi nab a spot as a dedicate TeQ-killer.

On the other hand, DE can't get Guide or Fortune from their goody-2-shoes pals. And their transports remain extra-explodey.

Still, definitely a step in the right direction. If they gave DE flyers Vector Dancer and somehow fixed Mandrakes and Webway Portals, I'd say the codex if fixed for 6th ed.

Wow, didn't expect this to be dug up.

I'm pretty proud of myself, the huskblade hint was true! Thank you Phil Kelly for my first and probably only time having a rumor source. My 40k bucket list is complete

Also love the incubi change, it justifies their points and use once again. 4 in a venom with a husk blade archon could be nasty. Also lets me use the archon I bought oh so long ago again. In late 5th I just stuck with Duke and his fun poison collection.