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.

In effort to avoid having a sergent with a Maul, another with a Axe, another with a sword, etc... what's your thoughts of someone converting their mode's weapon to have aspects as all of them. That way in a game, he can say, it's an ornate X... conversion.

So imagine a pole arm held in one hand that isn't as long as spear, but longer than a two handed sword. It has a mace head base, kinda like a pommel, a sword / dagger tip sticking out of the other hend... looking like a glaive... but on the sharp side, there's an Axe blade on one side of the pole and a hammer on the other side of the pole.

Is it a sword, axe, maul, hammer, pole... whatever... it's a cool looking weapon and now you only need one dude with it instead of 4 different models for the same unit to address your options.

Anyway, wanted to get your thoughts on the legality of modelling for convenience of play.

Cheers,

Just magnetize the model, problem solved. To answer your question though, in a friendly game I wouldn't mind if you pointed to a sergeant with a power fist and told me he had a maul instead. Other people might not like it, and it certainly wouldn't fly in a tournament.

Tactica wrote:
So imagine a pole arm held in one hand that isn't as long as spear, but longer than a two handed sword.

This statement doesn't say or mean anything. Spears have, historically, been as short as 5 feet and as long 14 feet(Macedonian Xyston). Similarly, there's no "standard length" for a two-handed sword(a Zweihander is about 180cm, which is a longer reach than the 5 ft spear).

Tactica wrote: It has a mace head base, kinda like a pommel, a sword / dagger tip sticking out of the other hend... looking like a glaive... but on the sharp side, there's an Axe blade on one side of the pole and a hammer on the other side of the pole.

How exactly are you supposed to fight with this mangled mess?

I see no problem with it except that I would probably LMAO at the weapon when I saw it.

That's like attaching a lasgun to a bolter to a shuriken catapult to a Railgun (if these same rules existed for shooting)

If your opponent can't tell what it is supposed to be by looking at it, it's going to annoy people.

If someone can't tell what weapon it's supposed to be at a glance, you won't get far.

No... overmodeling is not WYSIWYG. Having a crazy ugly everyweapon is not going to look good and be horribly confusing.

Just magnetize weapons...

If I saw that, I'd say it was an "unusual" power weapon and was STR/AP 3.

Probably to be filed under 'not helpful':

Maybe just convert the model to have a caddy, with a bag of each weapon in it?

I agree with the consensus, such a weapon would not fit the spirit of WYSIWYG as an opponent would find it impossible to look at your model and know exactly what it has (and would be ugly to boot). My vote goes towards magnetising the weapon arms, which is exactly what I have started doing with my Chaos champions.

Platuan4th wrote:

Tactica wrote:
So imagine a pole arm held in one hand that isn't as long as spear, but longer than a two handed sword.

This statement doesn't say or mean anything. Spears have, historically, been as short as 5 feet and as long 14 feet(Macedonian Xyston).

Historical sidetrack: the Macedonian sarissa got up to 21ft in length during the Hellenistic period. One of my uni lecturers had a full-size replica in his office, IIRC.

Obviously, this would not be practical even in the 40k universe where bricks can fly, but the more you know.

This is slightly open to abuse as well.
In a tournament you could change what the (confusing) weapon represents between games to match your opponent. That would not go down well.

Magnets. It's easier than you think.

Thank you for the feedback everyone.

Brothererekose wrote:Probably to be filed under 'not helpful':

Maybe just convert the model to have a caddy, with a bag of each weapon in it?

I can imagine an Ammo Runt with a golfbag and the Warboss with his empty hand reaching back for something... that's epic. Kilts all around, of course.

As far as the original poster... I'd find it incredibly annoying to have a weapon modeled that way.

If you're looking for a reasonable "could it be a sword? Or is it an axe?" you can go with a sickle-sword (Khopesh on Wikipedia). It is essentially used as both, among other abilities, but for game purposes, so long as you have everyone counting it as the same thing, you can change it from game to game. It looks the role of both and either, so it should not be a problem for WYSIWYG.

Skinnattittar wrote:If you're looking for a reasonable "could it be a sword? Or is it an axe?" you can go with a sickle-sword (Khopesh on Wikipedia). It is essentially used as both, among other abilities, but for game purposes, so long as you have everyone counting it as the same thing, you can change it from game to game. It looks the role of both and either, so it should not be a problem for WYSIWYG.

A khopesh is a sword.

insaniak wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:If you're looking for a reasonable "could it be a sword? Or is it an axe?" you can go with a sickle-sword (Khopesh on Wikipedia). It is essentially used as both, among other abilities, but for game purposes, so long as you have everyone counting it as the same thing, you can change it from game to game. It looks the role of both and either, so it should not be a problem for WYSIWYG.

A khopesh is a sword.

That can strike like an axe. In a game of magic, space elves, chaotic gods, based from a game of magic and dragons, I think we can let players decide what their little toy soldiers wielding axe-like/sword-esque weapons do.

From an equipment standpoint, I would say the sickle-sword ended up in the "sword" category more for its construction and style than for its use, which is mixed and varied.

Skinnattittar wrote:

insaniak wrote:A khopesh is a sword.

That can strike like an axe.

...but is a sword.


When you have to define what rules a model uses by the weapon that is actually modelled with, calling a spade a shovel just because you use it like one is just going to cause confusion.

insaniak wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:

insaniak wrote:A khopesh is a sword.

That can strike like an axe.

...but is a sword.
When you have to define what rules a model uses by the weapon that is actually modelled with, calling a spade a shovel just because you use it like one is just going to cause confusion.

No, a Khopesh is called a Khopesh. Hence the name, Khopesh.

Also, not suggesting a Khopesh, but an axe-like "sickle-sword," modeled in such a way as to be fairly called either. But in all honesty, that's between you and your opponent.

If you are modelling for a tournament, best suggestion is to choose one weapon and run with that. If you're looking to play friendly games and be as WYSIWYG friendly as possible, and tend to use sword or axe depending on your mood, a sword-axe or axe-sword, or something much like a sickle-sword is a good balance. Otherwise, pick a horse and stick with it.

An axe-like "sickle-sword" would function nothing like an axe.
In order for an axe to do what an axe does it requires weight and momentum. A solid lump of metal behind the blade usualy and top-heavy.
Just having a curved cresent blade doesn't make a weapon an axe.
You can't split a log with a sickle. Or a Kopesh for that matter.

Edit:

Skinnattittar wrote:No, a Khopesh is called a Khopesh. Hence the name, Khopesh.

Khopesh also translates from Egyptian as... sword.

grendel083 wrote:An axe-like "sickle-sword" would function nothing like an axe.
In order for an axe to do what an axe does it requires weight and momentum. A solid lump of metal behind the blade usualy and top-heavy.
Just having a curved cresent blade doesn't make a weapon an axe.
You can't split a log with a sickle. Or a Kopesh for that matter.

Except that they did use them in combat much like an axe. It was not as weighty as an equally sized axe, true, but then an axe lacked the slashing ability that was needed, and the reversed hook of the weapon allowed them to pull open an opponent's defenses. Do not forget to look at the battle axes used at the time of the sickle-swords, which were not like the battle axes we think of today (which were pretty much never used). Ye ol' battle axe was more like a halberd, small and mounted on the end of a shaft with a spike, more like a spear than an axe, with the ability to open up an opponent's defenses, much like a sickle-sword was used, or the smaller hand axes that were used at the same time when things got closer.

Then again, we are in the land of magic and grim-dark technologies. Perhaps they simply added weights to the back of the blade to increase its axe-like smashing ability while maintaining the other pros, and when they wanted a more sword-like weapon, they simply detached the weights, and changed their style. Ultimately, back to between you and your opponent and having a good time while trying to keep things as simple as possible. If my opponent brought a table of sickle-sword models and said "axe" or "sword," I would be able to identify them from obvious axe wielding models and obvious sword wielding models (i.e.; straight swords and "classic" battle axes).

EDIT:

grendel083 wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:No, a Khopesh is called a Khopesh. Hence the name, Khopesh.

Khopesh also translates from Egyptian as... sword.

Except that the Egyptians had another word for non-khopesh swords, which also translated to "sword" while the word for the khopesh translated to "sword that is a khopesh." Remember that translations of ancient, dead languages are often done in-explicitly. But in the case of the khopesh, the Egyptians actually had a hieroglyph just for it, which was shaped like a khopesh, and became a symbol in other words as well.

Skinnattittar wrote:No, a Khopesh is called a Khopesh. Hence the name, Khopesh.

And a Claymore is called a Claymore... and is also a sword.

Also, not suggesting a Khopesh, but an axe-like "sickle-sword," modeled in such a way as to be fairly called either. ...

...would be confusing for your opponent, and thus not likely to be well-received.

Same argument could be made for the ancient Iberian falcata, which was a weapon that had a sharp edge like a sword, but was shaped so that there was a lot of weight on the end like an axe. Made a real mess of armour, apparently.

But yeah, I have to agree with Insaniak. If it looks like a sword, then it's a sword. The whole point of this rule is to allow players to tell exactly what is what just by looking at it. That said, I doubt I'd have a problem with it in a game (even at a tournament), as long as it was consistent and you weren't just changing the type to suit your opponent.

Cheexsta wrote:Same argument could be made for the ancient Iberian falcata, which was a weapon that had a sharp edge like a sword, but was shaped so that there was a lot of weight on the end like an axe. Made a real mess of armour, apparently.

The falcata was actually a descendant of the khopesh and wielded like a sword, as opposed to the exotic wield of its progenitor. It did not itself make a mess of armor, but allowed the wielder the ability to sort of leaver into armor in a way their opponent would not be used to/expecting, as well as giving them a better ability to leaver open an opponent's shield or defenses. The more exotic, older sickle-swords were used similarly, but were wielded more like axes than swords, using the wielder's weight to defeat defenses rather than playing the tip against their enemy (think axe as opposed to rapier).

Cheexsta wrote:But yeah, I have to agree with Insaniak. If it looks like a sword, then it's a sword. The whole point of this rule is to allow players to tell exactly what is what just by looking at it. That said, I doubt I'd have a problem with it in a game (even at a tournament), as long as it was consistent and you weren't just changing the type to suit your opponent.

That's the thing; an axe-like sickle-sword does not look like a sword, nor does it exactly look like an axe. The idea is to make it believable to be either, and at least raise the question "what does that count as?" Simply curving a blade slightly would not do, obviously that would look like a curved sword, nor would thinning an axe, as that would still look like an axe.

Think more of an arakh (the weapon used by the Dothrahki in Game of Thrones), with a bladed haft to a singe handed grip. Unique enough to be separate from swords and axes, obvious enough to be picked out among models, like enough to be either when declared. Is it perfect? No. But again, we're in a universe of magic, maniacal gods, and ancient dark technology. So really, most anything goes so long as it looks crazy enough.

Skinnattittar wrote:Unique enough to be separate from swords and axes, obvious enough to be picked out among models, like enough to be either when declared. Is it perfect? No. But again, we're in a universe of magic, maniacal gods, and ancient dark technology. So really, most anything goes so long as it looks crazy enough.

Some text redacted by Mannahnin Purposfully making your weapons hard to identify when the rule explicitly relies on the appearance is rude to opponents and gamebreaking.

Why go out of your way to harm gameplay, confuse opponents and cause trouble by trying to make 'everyweapons'?

Hell, maybe if I hold my magic axesword by the blade then I can use the hilt as a mace huh? dark maniacal magic technogods and all!@

nkelsch wrote:Stop saying that magical universe garbage. Purposfully making your weapons hard to identify when the rule explicitly relies on the appearance is rude to opponents and gamebreaking.

Sure, I will when Games-Workshop does. Or at least makes rules that do not require FAQs almost as thick as the original. But this is besides the point.

nkelsch wrote:Why go out of your way to harm gameplay, confuse opponents and cause trouble by trying to make 'everyweapons'?

Harm gameplay in friendly games? It is pretty common practice to use entirely different armies to represent a force in friendly games. I can not even imagine how difficult that is to keep track of, which is why I excuse myself from them when offered. So if your opponent is opposed to a unique weapon counting as a sword or an axe (though clearly defined across the army), then you will have to decide if you still want to play, as per the rules. If your opponent says "sure, that is clear and reasonable enough that I will accept it," then game on!

nkelsch wrote:Hell, maybe if I hold my magic axesword by the blade then I can use the hilt as a mace huh? dark maniacal magic technogods and all!@

Sure, why not. Just make sure to model it that way and I would gladly accept that.

@ nkelsch: Don't forget to make the handle long enough (with pointed end) so you can jab with it like a spear.

Ok, guys. Keep it civil.

Opinions are just that... opinions. And everyone is untitled to theirs.

Hey guys, calm down... LOL, I just through the question out there to determine if it was legal first and second, to consider a modeling challenge for an asthetically pleasing piece of gear, but one that would not have me toting around a bazzilion little magnetized bits for various arms / guns... I hate all that fiddly crap. If I could have a solution that essentially covered the major weapon options I wanted on a model - cool, if legal, great... but if it would piss people off - well, then I missed my mark as that is not a desirable consequence...

Yeah, I understand what you were going for there, but when you think about it, it is contrary to the spirit and purpose of the rule. You're supposed to be able to tell what it is and thus what rules it has just by looking at it. This kind of combo-weapon subverts the rule and puts us back to having to ask and remember.

And as a general reminder for folks: