Replacing stock PW swords with Axe to get the new 6ed Axe's rule (AP2, Int1)

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.

**rigeld2**

Jidmah wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
Jidmah wrote:Common consensus also seems to be that you can use a battle cannon as a power maul. It is a blunt object.

Interesting straw man. Could you quote the statements in this thread that caused you to assume something so ludicrous?

For one, a battle cannon has a specific 40k function. That function isn't a power maul.
For two, I don't know of any model that is permitted to have a battle cannon and a power weapon.
For three, are you seriously saying that a model like... A Warboss (no idea if they're allowed power weapons or not - but go with this for now) wielding a battle cannon barrel attached to some car batteries (executed well) would be illegal?

I was merely stating the common consensus, not agreeing nor disagreeing with it in any way. I was also making a joke.

Except that's not the common consensus. No one has even alluded to it.
It's more insulting than a joke.

Common consensus seems to be that Jidmah will never accept any models except Citadel and then only if they're 100% stock and follow the codex.

See how wrong that is? See how it's a little insulting? Not too funny.

If you think it's common, back it up with evidence. As I asked.

**kirsanth**

Now I am picturing this, only with tanks:

" border="0" />

**Jidmah**

Common consensus in this thread is that you look at a model to find out what power weapon it has. If you model a DCA with two battle cannons with battery packs, those are blunt power weapons and thus count as power mauls.

It's a silly example, but isn't that what you guys are all saying? Model first, check rules later?

**rigeld2**

Jidmah wrote:Common consensus in this thread is that you look at a model to find out what power weapon it has. If you model a DCA with two battle cannons with battery packs, those are blunt power weapons and thus count as power mauls.

Its a silly example, but isn't that what you guys are all saying? Model first, check rules later?

A) that's not what you said originally
B) sure. As long as the conversion is executed well, what's the problem?
Are you refusing any conversions flat out? That's what it seems like you're saying, but I know you're better than that. Heck, based on your Warboss you're a fan of conversions using parts that aren't from an original kit - or should your biker boss be illegal because it's not the Forgeworld one?
http://www.lordmaul.de/warboss.JPG

**Kommissar Kel**

rigeld2 wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
Jidmah wrote:Common consensus also seems to be that you can use a battle cannon as a power maul. It is a blunt object.

Interesting straw man. Could you quote the statements in this thread that caused you to assume something so ludicrous?

For one, a battle cannon has a specific 40k function. That function isn't a power maul.
For two, I don't know of any model that is permitted to have a battle cannon and a power weapon.
For three, are you seriously saying that a model like... A Warboss (no idea if they're allowed power weapons or not - but go with this for now) wielding a battle cannon barrel attached to some car batteries (executed well) would be illegal?

I was merely stating the common consensus, not agreeing nor disagreeing with it in any way. I was also making a joke.

Except that's not the common consensus. No one has even alluded to it.
It's more insulting than a joke.

Common consensus seems to be that Jidmah will never accept any models except Citadel and then only if they're 100% stock and follow the codex.

See how wrong that is? See how it's a little insulting? Not too funny.

If you think it's common, back it up with evidence. As I asked.

While Jidmah was Joking, he was also completely correct.

You were the one that attached using the rules for a Battle cannon to Jidmah's statement.

I Assumed, based on the Context of this thread, that Jidmah was talking about a model holding a battle cannon(barrel or entire turret) in it's hand, brandished as one would a Club.

If that model had purchased a Power weapon; and the player informed me that the brandished Battle cannon was said power weapon, then yes, I would call that Battle-cannon shaped Power weapon a Power maul.

**Jidmah**

rigeld2 wrote:
Jidmah wrote:Common consensus in this thread is that you look at a model to find out what power weapon it has. If you model a DCA with two battle cannons with battery packs, those are blunt power weapons and thus count as power mauls.

Its a silly example, but isn't that what you guys are all saying? Model first, check rules later?

A) that's not what you said originally
B) sure. As long as the conversion is executed well, what's the problem?
Are you refusing any conversions flat out? That's what it seems like you're saying, but I know you're better than that.

How about you read any of my posts before keeping claiming stuff like that?

I explicitly explained multiple how I handle my conversions and how I expect conversions to be handled. It's somewhere between the insults/caps locking/trolling/belittling/misquoting on the last ten pages.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thanks, Kel.

**rigeld2**

Jidmah wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
Jidmah wrote:Common consensus in this thread is that you look at a model to find out what power weapon it has. If you model a DCA with two battle cannons with battery packs, those are blunt power weapons and thus count as power mauls.

Its a silly example, but isn't that what you guys are all saying? Model first, check rules later?

A) that's not what you said originally
B) sure. As long as the conversion is executed well, what's the problem?
Are you refusing any conversions flat out? That's what it seems like you're saying, but I know you're better than that.

How about you read any of my posts before keeping claiming stuff like that?

I have. You told me to have my buddy use his DCAs and Crusaders with counts-as power swords (meaning itd break WYSIWYG). Before, that's exactly what they were, unfortunately. Now, 6th gives him the option that you refuse exists.

You have still drawn an arbitrary line and have yet to justify it. What is giving you the permission to draw the line at GW website pictures ( some of which aren't codex legal)?

Unless I've missed you saying something otherwise - in which case I'll apologize.

**Joe Mama**

Hey Jidmah, I asked some questions awhile back, there were 6 of them. They were scenarios actually, asking about what power weapon to model. Would you mind going back and answering them? It would help clarify your point, and lead to less confusion. Thanks.

Edit - You know what, I will repost them.

Here are my various scenarios, please answer on whether or not a specific type of power weapon should 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 (and wrong by today's standards) 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. Must 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, never sold, never given to anyone, were however 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. Must 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 possession?

**Jidmah**

I believe Therion gave you a thorough answer to all six.

**Joe Mama**

Jidmah wrote:I believe Therion gave you a thorough answer to all six.

And you are in complete agreement with him? Are you sure about that?

**Jidmah**

rigeld2 wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
Jidmah wrote:Common consensus in this thread is that you look at a model to find out what power weapon it has. If you model a DCA with two battle cannons with battery packs, those are blunt power weapons and thus count as power mauls.

Its a silly example, but isn't that what you guys are all saying? Model first, check rules later?

A) that's not what you said originally
B) sure. As long as the conversion is executed well, what's the problem?
Are you refusing any conversions flat out? That's what it seems like you're saying, but I know you're better than that.

How about you read any of my posts before keeping claiming stuff like that?

I have. You told me to have my buddy use his DCAs and Crusaders with counts-as power swords (meaning itd break WYSIWYG). Before, that's exactly what they were, unfortunately. Now, 6th gives him the option that you refuse exists.

You have still drawn an arbitrary line and have yet to justify it. What is giving you the permission to draw the line at GW website pictures ( some of which aren't codex legal)?

Unless I've missed you saying something otherwise - in which case I'll apologize.

If you are so worried about breaking WYSIWYG, then all conversions must be illegal anyway, right? After all, there are no gretchin in the imperial guard.

I'm also not continuing arguing against six people who don't even care to read my posts. Only two people have actually cared about answering to my arguments.

Why should I care about your arguments if you have not disproven my counter-arguments?

**Joe Mama**

Jidmah wrote:I'm also not continuing arguing against six people who don't even care to read my posts. Only two people have actually cared about answering to my arguments.

If you answered my questions that would seriously clarify your position. If your goal is clarity and understanding (instead of complaining) you would jump at the chance to answer them.

**Jidmah**

Joe Mama wrote:
Jidmah wrote:I believe Therion gave you a thorough answer to all six.

And you are in complete agreement with him? Are you sure about that?

Hey, how about you read my posts?

They also answer all of your six questions.

**Joe Mama**

Jidmah wrote:
Joe Mama wrote:
Jidmah wrote:I believe Therion gave you a thorough answer to all six.

And you are in complete agreement with him? Are you sure about that?

Hey, how about you read my posts?

They also answer all of your six questions.

So you have no desire to discuss in good faith, and you have no desire to further clarify your argument. Sounds like you should never post in this thread again if you feel that way.

PS - Can you point me to where you even remotely discussed never sold special GW models? Or a model the complete wrong size made over 20 years ago?

**Jidmah**

Joe Mama wrote:
Jidmah wrote:I'm also not continuing arguing against six people who don't even care to read my posts. Only two people have actually cared about answering to my arguments.

If you answered my questions that would seriously clarify your position. If your goal is clarity and understanding (instead of complaining) you would jump at the chance to answer them.

Considering all the snides, insults and general attitude coming from you, your goal has absolutely nothing to do with Warhammer40k rules. Thus, actually summarizing (again!) what I wrote is a waste of time anyways.

**Joe Mama**

Jidmah wrote:Considering all the snides, insults and general attitude coming from you, your goal has absolutely nothing to do with Warhammer40k rules. Thus, actually summarizing (again!) what I wrote is a waste of time anyways.

How sad.

Even if what you say is true (it isn't), we aren't PMing. Multiple people are here, and 100s of lurkers. Do you not care about making a clear, coherent argument? You seemed to care before when you complained about confusion over your posts. Now you are doing your best NOT to clarify. Please stop posting in here if you have no desire to discuss this in good faith.

**Jidmah**

Weren't you the one rekindling the discussion? Maybe you should stop posting here if you don't care to look at what I previously posted.

Just for all those "poor onlookers":

As long as you find any model ever made by citadel with the weapon you desire, I'm fine with you counting even a bottle cap as that exact model. For me personally even a drawn picture from GW would suffice. If there is no model with any power/force weapon in existence, do whatever you want. You happy now?

I posted this like six time before.

**rigeld2**

Jidmah wrote:If you are so worried about breaking WYSIWYG, then all conversions must be illegal anyway, right? After all, there are no gretchin in the imperial guard.

That's not what I've said. If all the gretchin are armed with lasguns (and hence WYSIWYG) they're fine. You're the one saying conversions must be armed with what the original GW kit/website allows. The codex gives DCAs two power weapons. Where is it defined that they must be swords?

Why should I care about your arguments if you have not disproven my counter-arguments?

I'm sure I just missed them in the past dozen pages. I'll go back and re-read.

**Joe Mama**

Jidmah wrote:As long as you find any model ever made by citadel with the weapon you desire, I'm fine with you counting even a bottle cap as that exact model. For me personally even a drawn picture from GW would suffice. If there is no model with any power/force weapon in existence, do whatever you want. You happy now?

I posted this like six time before.

No, I don't think you did. Not like this. GW doesn't need to sell a model, it doesn't even need to make a model! A picture from GW is enough. Do book covers count? Endorsed artwork posted on GW's website? What about user submitted artwork that GW posts on their site for a contest? Limited edition promotional materials sent to stores? What about pictures on GW's site showing conversions, mixing kits together? If they featured my sweet sweet DCA, which are a mix of Wood Elves, IG Cadian, GK falchions (and for sake of argument, Empire Axes), would all of a sudden axes be allowed?

**Jidmah**

Joe Mama wrote:
Jidmah wrote:I just posted what you wanted. I have no interest in continuing the discussion, as there is no point in it.

I disagree with your opinion of being allowed to change models to alter their game performance.

That is not a rule.

Thus there is no ground to argue on.

I have accepted the common consensus of powerweapon = pick one. I still disagree with it, as for me it's on par with any other modeling shenanigans that have come up over the year.

No no. Now it is getting good! You claim a picture from GW is enough. There are further questions for you to answer. Don't leave yet!!!!!

As Joe is quite obviously doing nothing but trolling, I'm out of here.

**Joe Mama**

Jidmah wrote:As Joe is quite obviously doing nothing but trolling, I'm out of here.

What!?

You just claimed pictures from GW, or even drawings, will allow us to model power weapons a certain way. That is something that DEMANDS clarification. I asked perfectly reasonable follow up questions. Shouldn't you need to know the answers to these questions to know what is allowable modeling? Yes, you should. Since you have no desire to continue, it is clear you were never arguing in good faith. Someone could have been trolling here, but it is certainly not me. I am looking for answers.

**Brother Ramses**

Jidmah wrote:Weren't you the one rekindling the discussion? Maybe you should stop posting here if you don't care to look at what I previously posted.

Just for all those "poor onlookers":

As long as you find any model ever made by citadel with the weapon you desire, I'm fine with you counting even a bottle cap as that exact model. For me personally even a drawn picture from GW would suffice. If there is no model with any power/force weapon in existence, do whatever you want. You happy now?

I posted this like six time before.

Your opinion with absolutely no rules support. Gotcha!

**insaniak**

Testify wrote: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

'The internet' has done no such thing. The vast majority of players are fully aware of the consequences of more 'creative' modelling, which is why you don't actually see those sort of armies on the table very often.

The issue in this thread is nothing to do with the common view on modelling for advantage, and is simply stuck on whether or not modelling a different power weapon to the one the model comes with actually constitutes modelling for advantage or is an acceptable interpretation of the new rules.

Throwing around baseless generalisations does nothing to further the discussion.

**Dracos**

I'm not sure there is a real answer to this question. Certainly, we have to look at the model and WYSIWYG.

This comes down to modeling, and GW does not make any rules about how you can make your models except how to base them and WYSIWYG.

In my playing area, conversions are highly praised above most else. I think around here you'd be hard pressed to find people who would put up a stink over converting your space marine sgt to a power axe, or even your succubus or banshees (gotta look good though!)

I could also see how people might not like conversions which have an in-game effect. I don't think either case is supported by the rules one way or the other.

**rigeld2**

Every conversion will have an in game effect. From TLOS to the models weapons, something will be different from the stock model.
Otherwise what's the point of converting? If you build to exactly match the stock model you're not really converting...

**Brother Ramses**

I already pointed out the invalidity of claiming ingame affects, positive or negative, as a point to argue,

GW did not place a different points value on the types of power weapons you can equip. They did not place a points premium on the types of combinations you can equip with said types of power weapons. In GW's eyes, they have balanced all power weapon types and combinations through the different rules for each type of power weapon.

That is why all this nonsense of modeling for advantage or modeling for ingame affects is a crap argument. It is 100% modeling within the new rules for power weapons that GW has deemed equal by the very fact that all power weapon types cost the same points cost.

**Dracos**

Brother Ramses wrote:That is why all this nonsense of modeling for advantage or modeling for ingame affects is a crap argument. It is 100% modeling within the new rules for power weapons that GW has deemed equal by the very fact that all power weapon types cost the same points cost.

Please cite this "modeling within the new rules", I have not found a section on modeling in the new rulebook that would cover how to build your models.

I'm just playing devils advocate, because I think both points of view have validity since there is a lack of RAW on modelling.

**insaniak**

Dracos wrote:This comes down to modeling, and GW does not make any rules about how you can make your models except how to base them and WYSIWYG.

Specifically, this comes down to whether you think GW's statement to look at the model to determine what weapon they have is intended to stop people from using anything other than what the model comes with (which leads to the aforementioned Finecast vs plastic Captain silliness) or if you think it's just GW's way of saying that the weapon you choose has to be represented on the model.

**Lichkitten**

I am of the school of thought that it can be abused, though since its only a week old no one has realistically been able to abuse it yet, but i do think the mix is interesting since now you have to gage the use of weather to take the axe/mace/lace/sword since they all have a different role now.

**DevianID**

I am still on jidmah's side here. GW doesn't say that the type of weapon is chosen when you make your list. Power weapon is the only option in many cases. To determine the effect your power weapon has, we are told to look at the model. Models have never ever been specified as to be unchanging during or inbeaten games.

So what rule is available to stop abuse from people switching types of power weapons (perhaps mid game) when all types are wysiwyg legal BUT what you see ALSO changes what you get?