Power Weapons?

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.

**Jstncloud**

So with the new rules there is a clear difference between Power 'Weapons' from what they used to be and the distinction between Power Swords, Axes, and Lances that we have in 6th ed. My question is if a unit says "May purchase power weapon at X cost" can you model it with any type of power weapon you like (obviously not Hammers and Fists as they are not the same thing). The reason I ask is because the Sanguinary Guard use power weapons and now some of the weapons in the kits are axes but the entry page is simply 'power weapons.'

Would it be acceptable to purchase a power weapon for a model and model it with a power lance and use the lance rules, just like in the same way the Sanguinary guard use swords and axes.

**DeathReaper**

Yes, the rules say to look at the model to determine what kind of power weapon it is.

So if you buy a Power Weapon it can be a Power; Sword, Axe, Maul, or Lance.

**Jstncloud**

DeathReaper wrote:
Yes, the rules say to look at the model to determine what kind of power weapon it is.

So if you buy a Power Weapon it can be a Power; Sword, Axe, Maul, or Lance.

Sweet, I fancy the idea of death company with lances...

**Aelyn**

Something I've been wondering since the new rulebook came out...

What do you do if the weapon being weilded doesn't fall into any of the four categories? In other words, if it's clearly not a sword, axe, mace or lance?

For example, a Slaaneshi Champion could easily have a barbed whip (similar to an agoniser) for his PW, or people could have weapons unlike anything used in reality (haloblade discs around the wrists could look awesome on Eldar models)

These don't fall under any of the given categories; does that mean they wouldn't be allowed?

**Scott-S6**

Aelyn wrote:
For example, a Slaaneshi Champion could easily have a barbed whip (similar to an agoniser) for his PW, or people could have weapons unlike anything used in reality (haloblade discs around the wrists could look awesome on Eldar models)

Does either of these have a picture in the codex? If not, then most people will complain that it's not WYSIWYG

**Jstncloud**

Aelyn wrote:
Something I've been wondering since the new rulebook came out...

What do you do if the weapon being weilded doesn't fall into any of the four categories? In other words, if it's clearly not a sword, axe, mace or lance?

For example, a Slaaneshi Champion could easily have a barbed whip (similar to an agoniser) for his PW, or people could have weapons unlike anything used in reality (haloblade discs around the wrists could look awesome on Eldar models)

These don't fall under any of the given categories; does that mean they wouldn't be allowed?

I would typically tell the opponent before the game what you intended for the model to be wielding then to avoid confusion.

**Steelmage99**

When it comes to the current "mutability" of Power Weapons one should keep in mind that this state of affairs might not hold true in the future.

We do not know whether future codexes will allow for this flexibility, or specify which "type" of Power Weapon is available to a given model/unit.

**SoloFalcon1138**

This thread again...

Yes it is legal(ish).
yes it is cheesy.

**Jstncloud**

Steelmage99 wrote:
When it comes to the current "mutability" of Power Weapons one should keep in mind that this state of affairs might not hold true in the future.

We do not know whether future codexes will allow for this flexibility, or specify which "type" of Power Weapon is available to a given model/unit.

If that is the case, I'll just have to count the lance models I make as power swords then if they make it to where they cannot be used in place of normal power weapons. Doubt anyone will scream WYSIWYG! if the models look bad-ass and were formerly usable and then the rules changed on the models 'again.'

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
This thread again...

Yes it is legal(ish).
yes it is cheesy.

Not sure how 'cheesy' it is. Lances are a one turn weapon really, and Axes are initiative 1. Axes are useless, fists/hammers are better (although usually 10 more points or so) and the lances (as stated) are a one turn weapon after which they lose a bit of their effectiveness. I think it is nice to be able to utilize different weapons now, adds diversity.

**Cheex**

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
This thread again...

Yes it is legal(ish).
yes it is cheesy.

Can be cheesy.

**Byte**

Death cult assassins... oh the options...

**Arschbombe**

Steelmage99 wrote:
When it comes to the current "mutability" of Power Weapons one should keep in mind that this state of affairs might not hold true in the future.

We do not know whether future codexes will allow for this flexibility, or specify which "type" of Power Weapon is available to a given model/unit.

I've seen this comment made in a couple of these threads and I don't know what makes people think that GW is suddenly going to change course on having multiple options for power weapons. I get that some people just don't like change, but when GW FAQs codices that have options for power swords to say power weapon instead it seems obvious what their intent is.

**coredump**

And I will disagree.

The rules do say to look at the model. The rules do not say you may change the model to use whichever version you wish.

If the model you are using, comes with Power Swords, and you change it for Power Lances, you are modeling for an in-game advantage.

Some folks seem to think this is okay, because they seem to think the rule 'implies' that it is okay. I sure don't see that, otherwise it would say that.

**Arschbombe**

So why did they change the option in the BA codex from sword to weapon? What possible reason could there have been other than to allow for a model to have a maul, lance or axe instead of just a sword?

I don't get why people are so hung up on the "in-game advantage." There are advantages and disadvantages to each type of power weapon.

**AlmightyWalrus**

coredump wrote:
And I will disagree.

The rules do say to look at the model. The rules do not say you may change the model to use whichever version you wish.

If the model you are using, comes with Power Swords, and you change it for Power Lances, you are modeling for an in-game advantage.

Some folks seem to think this is okay, because they seem to think the rule 'implies' that it is okay. I sure don't see that, otherwise it would say that.

No Tactical Squads with Lascannons or Plasma Cannons then, they don't come with that after all, and adding it from somewhere else is MFA!!

**Steelmage99**

Arschbombe wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:When it comes to the current "mutability" of Power Weapons one should keep in mind that this state of affairs might not hold true in the future.

We do not know whether future codexes will allow for this flexibility, or specify which "type" of Power Weapon is available to a given model/unit.

I've seen this comment made in a couple of these threads and I don't know what makes people think that GW is suddenly going to change course on having multiple options for power weapons.

One reason could be that the current FAQs can be seen as quick stop-gap FAQs enabling all armies to be played right away in 6th.

I get that some people just don't like change

Please, don't attempt to guess at peoples motivations. Psychiatrists do that only after several hour-long face-to-face sessions.....and even they get it wrong sometimes.

but when GW FAQs codices that have options for power swords to say power weapon instead it seems obvious what their intent is.

Or it is the aforementioned stop-gap measure. Perhaps GW intends said entries to allow for certain power weapon types while disallowing others at varying point costs.
This might be addressed when GW either releases a new codex for a given army, or when they release the next rounds of FAQs.

Or GW might stick to their current "what-model-is-armed-with" philosophy.
My point is that we don't know anything for certain. The pendulum has swung to full flexibility....and it might swing back. Such a change would be no more sudden than the one we are currently seeing.
I am looking very much forward to seeing both codex Chaos Space Marines and codex Dark Angels for any indications about how Power Weapons are handled.

I know that I might not be right, and I know for certain that it will not prevent some people (not directed at you, Arschbombe) from complaining loudly should the opposite be true.
All it does is allowing me to look back, should I be right, shrug my shoulders and think; "At least I tried...".

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AlmightyWalrusb801d.jpeg wrote:
coredump wrote:And I will disagree.

The rules do say to look at the model. The rules do not say you may change the model to use whichever version you wish.

If the model you are using, comes with Power Swords, and you change it for Power Lances, you are modeling for an in-game advantage.

Some folks seem to think this is okay, because they seem to think the rule 'implies' that it is okay. I sure don't see that, otherwise it would say that.

No Tactical Squads with Lascannons or Plasma Cannons then, they don't come with that after all, and adding it from somewhere else is MFA!!

That isn't really a comparable situation, now is it?

**DeathReaper**

Steelmage99 wrote:
AlmightyWalrusb801d.jpeg wrote:
coredump wrote:And I will disagree.

The rules do say to look at the model. The rules do not say you may change the model to use whichever version you wish.

If the model you are using, comes with Power Swords, and you change it for Power Lances, you are modeling for an in-game advantage.

Some folks seem to think this is okay, because they seem to think the rule 'implies' that it is okay. I sure don't see that, otherwise it would say that.

No Tactical Squads with Lascannons or Plasma Cannons then, they don't come with that after all, and adding it from somewhere else is MFA!!

That isn't really a comparable situation, now is it?

Actually it is a comparable situation.

Tactical Squads do not come with Lascannons, but the Codex allows a Lascannon armed Tactical Marine. How are we supposed to get a Lascannon armed Tactical Marine if we do not model it with the proper wargear?

If the Option exists in the Codex/BRB you are allowed to have that model in your army list. and since we do not want our opponents to be confused we model them to a WYSIWYG standard so you show the Power Maul and Power Sword on the model.

Also if you use Death Cult Assassins you need to model weapons onto them as the only two available models do not have the correct wargear. (One comes with only a single power sword, the other comes with two non-powered weapons, and the wargear for the DCA lists two power weapons).

**Steelmage99**

DeathReaper wrote:
Steelmage wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
coredump wrote:And I will disagree.

The rules do say to look at the model. The rules do not say you may change the model to use whichever version you wish.

If the model you are using, comes with Power Swords, and you change it for Power Lances, you are modeling for an in-game advantage.

Some folks seem to think this is okay, because they seem to think the rule 'implies' that it is okay. I sure don't see that, otherwise it would say that.

No Tactical Squads with Lascannons or Plasma Cannons then, they don't come with that after all, and adding it from somewhere else is MFA!!

That isn't really a comparable situation, now is it?

Tactical Squads do not come with Lascannons, but the Codex allows a Lascannon armed Tactical Marine.

Aaand we are done.

**jifel**

I guess the question is, what do you do with a model armed with a power whip? Personally, I'd say a sword, as that is the "default" power weapon, (because that is what unusual power weapons count as, even though a whip is not unusual in a RAW sense)

The same question can be asked about a force spear, as those don't exist.

**Kevin949**

Aelyn wrote:
Something I've been wondering since the new rulebook came out...

What do you do if the weapon being weilded doesn't fall into any of the four categories? In other words, if it's clearly not a sword, axe, mace or lance?

For example, a Slaaneshi Champion could easily have a barbed whip (similar to an agoniser) for his PW, or people could have weapons unlike anything used in reality (haloblade discs around the wrists could look awesome on Eldar models)

These don't fall under any of the given categories; does that mean they wouldn't be allowed?

Personally, I'd call it an AP3 close combat weapon if it is indeed classified as a power weapon. I wouldn't let someone claim a whip has axe stats or whatever. But that's just hiwpi.

**Jstncloud**

coredump wrote:
And I will disagree.

The rules do say to look at the model. The rules do not say you may change the model to use whichever version you wish.

If the model you are using, comes with Power Swords, and you change it for Power Lances, you are modeling for an in-game advantage.

Some folks seem to think this is okay, because they seem to think the rule 'implies' that it is okay. I sure don't see that, otherwise it would say that.

So by your logic a model that can take say, a Lascannon, but does not come with one therefore cannot be modeled with one because I'd be using bits that did not come with the kit for an 'in-game advantage?'

The same could be said for nearly every kit, Valkyries and Dreadnoughts come to mind, that don't come with 'every' option and therefore require outside options to model them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Steelmage99 wrote:
Arschbombe wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:When it comes to the current "mutability" of Power Weapons one should keep in mind that this state of affairs might not hold true in the future.

We do not know whether future codexes will allow for this flexibility, or specify which "type" of Power Weapon is available to a given model/unit.

I've seen this comment made in a couple of these threads and I don't know what makes people think that GW is suddenly going to change course on having multiple options for power weapons.

One reason could be that the current FAQs can be seen as quick stop-gap FAQs enabling all armies to be played right away in 6th.

I get that some people just don't like change

Please, don't attempt to guess at peoples motivations. Psychiatrists do that only after several hour-long face-to-face sessions.....and even they get it wrong sometimes.

but when GW FAQs codices that have options for power swords to say power weapon instead it seems obvious what their intent is.

Or it is the aforementioned stop-gap measure. Perhaps GW intends said entries to allow for certain power weapon types while disallowing others at varying point costs.
This might be addressed when GW either releases a new codex for a given army, or when they release the next rounds of FAQs.

Or GW might stick to their current "what-model-is-armed-with" philosophy.
My point is that we don't know anything for certain. The pendulum has swung to full flexibility....and it might swing back. Such a change would be no more sudden than the one we are currently seeing.
I am looking very much forward to seeing both codex Chaos Space Marines and codex Dark Angels for any indications about how Power Weapons are handled.

I know that I might not be right, and I know for certain that it will not prevent some people (not directed at you, Arschbombe) from complaining loudly should the opposite be true.
All it does is allowing me to look back, should I be right, shrug my shoulders and think; "At least I tried...".

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AlmightyWalrusb801d.jpeg wrote:
coredump wrote:And I will disagree.

The rules do say to look at the model. The rules do not say you may change the model to use whichever version you wish.

If the model you are using, comes with Power Swords, and you change it for Power Lances, you are modeling for an in-game advantage.

Some folks seem to think this is okay, because they seem to think the rule 'implies' that it is okay. I sure don't see that, otherwise it would say that.

No Tactical Squads with Lascannons or Plasma Cannons then, they don't come with that after all, and adding it from somewhere else is MFA!!

That isn't really a comparable situation, now is it?

Seems very comparative to me, the kits mentioned do not come with various options, just like squads that can take power weapons but don't have them in their kits. One cannot impose this logic on one kit and not another.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jifel wrote:
I guess the question is, what do you do with a model armed with a power whip? Personally, I'd say a sword, as that is the "default" power weapon, (because that is what unusual power weapons count as, even though a whip is not unusual in a RAW sense)

The same question can be asked about a force spear, as those don't exist.

For the Force Spear I'd probably go with the lance rules. If I recall Force Swords are basically power weapons with instant death added via psychic power so it'd be just as easy for a force spear to function the same way.

As for the whip I'd probably look at what is 'used to be' and have it represent the closest thing in the current edition which I believe would be plain power swords right?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kevin949 wrote:
Aelyn wrote:
Something I've been wondering since the new rulebook came out...

What do you do if the weapon being weilded doesn't fall into any of the four categories? In other words, if it's clearly not a sword, axe, mace or lance?

For example, a Slaaneshi Champion could easily have a barbed whip (similar to an agoniser) for his PW, or people could have weapons unlike anything used in reality (haloblade discs around the wrists could look awesome on Eldar models)

These don't fall under any of the given categories; does that mean they wouldn't be allowed?

Personally, I'd call it an AP3 close combat weapon if it is indeed classified as a power weapon. I wouldn't let someone claim a whip has axe stats or whatever. But that's just hiwpi.

I agree, in this case it'd be a stretch to claim it was something else.

**Cheex**

There are some situations where I think it can be abusive, but if you say that I'm not allowed to use conversions that change a model's wargear (to a legal combination), then I'd ask that you find another opponent. Take my Berzerkers for example: a Berzerker box comes with exactly zero close combat weapon upgrades, so this interpretation would mean that I would be literally unable to give my Skull Champions any power weapon of any type because the model doesn't come with one.

No, I think it'd be abusive if someone was to change the weapon depending on the opponent (in the same way as any kind of list tooling), or changing the weapon between games at a tournament. I don't think it's fair at all to say that a player with a suitably converted model can't use the weapon it's been converted to have because it's "MFA".

To me, MFA means that you're getting some kind of unfair advantage by creative modelling. Normally, this would be by making a model smaller than it would normally be, or something to that effect; I don't think this should be used to include conversions for a piece of wargear that the model can legally upgrade.

**Kevin949**

Cheexsta wrote:
There are some situations where I think it can be abusive, but if you say that I'm not allowed to use conversions that change a model's wargear (to a legal combination), then I'd ask that you find another opponent. Take my Berzerkers for example: a Berzerker box comes with exactly zero close combat weapon upgrades, so this interpretation would mean that I would be literally unable to give my Skull Champions any power weapon of any type because the model doesn't come with one.

No, I think it'd be abusive if someone was to change the weapon depending on the opponent (in the same way as any kind of list tooling), or changing the weapon between games at a tournament. I don't think it's fair at all to say that a player with a suitably converted model can't use the weapon it's been converted to have because it's "MFA".

To me, MFA means that you're getting some kind of unfair advantage by creative modelling. Normally, this would be by making a model smaller than it would normally be, or something to that effect; I don't think this should be used to include conversions for a piece of wargear that the model can legally upgrade.

Uh, those are also from quite some time ago as far as I know, so when they get their update they'll have to be (or should be) modeled with what they come with. While in this situation you're technically right that you can give them whatever you want, I suppose, but it will most likely not be correct at a later date. Just sayin. But bringing up an old army in a topic about brand new rules makes your point hold little to no water (no offense).

**Jstncloud**

Uh, those are also from quite some time ago as far as I know, so when they get their update they'll have to be (or should be) modeled with what they come with. While in this situation you're technically right that you can give them whatever you want, I suppose, but it will most likely not be correct at a later date. Just sayin. But bringing up an old army in a topic about brand new rules makes your point hold little to no water (no offense).

So because Tactical marines (NEW MODELS) do not come with a power fist in the box we should not model them with that correct? You do know berzerkers are melee oriented right? You do realize that if Chaos gets their new codex GW would be crazy to take away the option to model their CLOSE COMBAT models with weapons not found in the box.

Simply put, to say that his point holds no water is down right insulting. Take a look at the kits, GW doesn't make many kits (if any) that come with EVERY option that a model can have. Guess my Vendettas were never intended to use anything but rocket pods and missiles....

**Barfolomew**

To expound on this topic, CSM terminators come with axes, a mace and some fists. No lightning claws and no swords. Thanks to the 6th rulebook, the terminators go from being armed with I4 power weapons to I1 power axes, which is pointless and redundant with power fists.

Therefore, if the I state that my whole army has power swords where they can be taken, unless the model has a fist, will people have issues with that?

**Jstncloud**

Cheexsta wrote:
There are some situations where I think it can be abusive, but if you say that I'm not allowed to use conversions that change a model's wargear (to a legal combination), then I'd ask that you find another opponent. Take my Berzerkers for example: a Berzerker box comes with exactly zero close combat weapon upgrades, so this interpretation would mean that I would be literally unable to give my Skull Champions any power weapon of any type because the model doesn't come with one.

No, I think it'd be abusive if someone was to change the weapon depending on the opponent (in the same way as any kind of list tooling), or changing the weapon between games at a tournament. I don't think it's fair at all to say that a player with a suitably converted model can't use the weapon it's been converted to have because it's "MFA".

To me, MFA means that you're getting some kind of unfair advantage by creative modelling. Normally, this would be by making a model smaller than it would normally be, or something to that effect; I don't think this should be used to include conversions for a piece of wargear that the model can legally upgrade.

Agree with everything you've said.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Barfolomew wrote:
To expound on this topic, CSM terminators come with axes, a mace and some fists. No lightning claws and no swords. Thanks to the 6th rulebook, the terminators go from being armed with I4 power weapons to I1 power axes, which is pointless and redundant with power fists.

Therefore, if the I state that my whole army has power swords where they can be taken, unless the model has a fist, will people have issues with that?

Something like this typically comes down to who it is you are playing, I personally would have no problem with it so long as you did not have some models who 'had' axes and some with 'axes that were meant to be swords.' I think most people would be fine so long as there is minimized confusion, fact of the matter is many people enjoy playing and I for one wouldn't say 'No I won't play with you because this model here is spossed to have a sword but you modeled an Axe before 6th ed.' Goes without saying that some people WILL do that to you, but the casual/non-win-at-all-cost players will be fine.

**nkelsch**

Jstncloud wrote:

Something like this typically comes down to who it is you are playing, I personally would have no problem with it so long as you did not have some models who 'had' axes and some with 'axes that were meant to be swords.' I think most people would be fine so long as there is minimized confusion, fact of the matter is many people enjoy playing and I for one wouldn't say 'No I won't play with you because this model here is spossed to have a sword but you modeled an Axe before 6th ed.' Goes without saying that some people WILL do that to you, but the casual/non-win-at-all-cost players will be fine.

Interesting... So now the rule only works based upon the models appearance... and that was translated into explicit permission to give any model any of the options. And now that we have convinced everyone we have explicit permission now we are back to 'I don't have to model it, just say it has whatever I want because it is a legal option.'

If you want to make up rules which are not in the rule book to allow permission to *CHOOSE* your weapon then turn around and claim to use proxy any powerweapon as any other power weapon...

It 'works' because it is implied we have a choice... but it also works because you LOOK AT THE MODEL. If you don't model it, it doesn't work. This is the rub because people are not actually giving models axes and are changing their power weapon every game, some between games in tourneys requiring TOs to explicitly define that a powerweapon is not an anyweapon. And yet... the people who are FOLLOWING THE RULES AS WRITTEN, "look at the model" are the ones being WAAC or powergamers when someone tries to proxy an axe as a sword because they think they have explicit permission to have any weapon type.

**Kevin949**

Jstncloud wrote:

Uh, those are also from quite some time ago as far as I know, so when they get their update they'll have to be (or should be) modeled with what they come with. While in this situation you're technically right that you can give them whatever you want, I suppose, but it will most likely not be correct at a later date. Just sayin. But bringing up an old army in a topic about brand new rules makes your point hold little to no water (no offense).

So because Tactical marines (NEW MODELS) do not come with a power fist in the box we should not model them with that correct? You do know berzerkers are melee oriented right? You do realize that if Chaos gets their new codex GW would be crazy to take away the option to model their CLOSE COMBAT models with weapons not found in the box.

Simply put, to say that his point holds no water is down right insulting. Take a look at the kits, GW doesn't make many kits (if any) that come with EVERY option that a model can have. Guess my Vendettas were never intended to use anything but rocket pods and missiles....

Complain to GW about not adding in proper bits to their packs. Yes, I know berzerkers are melee oriented. Your point there?

And no, I'm not saying to not model them with something they can OBVIOUSLY take. I'm saying that for now you can model the berzerkers with whatever you want but that "might" change later on. I also don't see your point in your statement about weapons not found in the box...what does that matter? I don't get force weapons in my boxes but are you saying I can take them if I model them? Plain and simple, the way it is now they take whatever, the way it will probably be later on is either going to be specified melee weapons OR a "choose from the standard power weapons list at X points per weapon" approach.

You obviously don't actually comprehend my previous post before getting offended by it, so I think you need to just take a minute and mull it over and actually realize what I'm saying isn't what you think I'm saying.

*Edit*
Oh, and EVERY NECRON KIT COMES WITH EVERYTHING YOU NEED. Except for the crypteks.

**Barfolomew**

nkelsch wrote:
Interesting... So now the rule only works based upon the models appearance... and that was translated into explicit permission to give any model any of the options. And now that we have convinced everyone we have explicit permission now we are back to 'I don't have to model it, just say it has whatever I want because it is a legal option.'

If you want to make up rules which are not in the rule book to allow permission to *CHOOSE* your weapon then turn around and claim to use proxy any powerweapon as any other power weapon...

It 'works' because it is implied we have a choice... but it also works because you LOOK AT THE MODEL. If you don't model it, it doesn't work. This is the rub because people are not actually giving models axes and are changing their power weapon every game, some between games in tourneys requiring TOs to explicitly define that a powerweapon is not an anyweapon. And yet... the people who are FOLLOWING THE RULES AS WRITTEN, "look at the model" are the ones being WAAC or powergamers when someone tries to proxy an axe as a sword because they think they have explicit permission to have any weapon type.

When GW provides models with the options in their rule book and refunds me the cost of the models so I can buy new ones, I'll change my models. Having been through 4 editions of 40K, I am quite tired of changing my models every time some dumbass at GW HQ decides to change the game model. For tournaments, I WYSIWYG my models, but for casual and testing I'm not changing models every time a game designer comes up with a "bright idea".

**Jstncloud**

Kevin949 wrote:
Jstncloud wrote:

Uh, those are also from quite some time ago as far as I know, so when they get their update they'll have to be (or should be) modeled with what they come with. While in this situation you're technically right that you can give them whatever you want, I suppose, but it will most likely not be correct at a later date. Just sayin. But bringing up an old army in a topic about brand new rules makes your point hold little to no water (no offense).

So because Tactical marines (NEW MODELS) do not come with a power fist in the box we should not model them with that correct? You do know berzerkers are melee oriented right? You do realize that if Chaos gets their new codex GW would be crazy to take away the option to model their CLOSE COMBAT models with weapons not found in the box.

Simply put, to say that his point holds no water is down right insulting. Take a look at the kits, GW doesn't make many kits (if any) that come with EVERY option that a model can have. Guess my Vendettas were never intended to use anything but rocket pods and missiles....

Complain to GW about not adding in proper bits to their packs. Yes, I know berzerkers are melee oriented. Your point there?

And no, I'm not saying to not model them with something they can OBVIOUSLY take. I'm saying that for now you can model the berzerkers with whatever you want but that "might" change later on. I also don't see your point in your statement about weapons not found in the box...what does that matter? I don't get force weapons in my boxes but are you saying I can take them if I model them? Plain and simple, the way it is now they take whatever, the way it will probably be later on is either going to be specified melee weapons OR a "choose from the standard power weapons list at X points per weapon" approach.

You obviously don't actually comprehend my previous post before getting offended by it, so I think you need to just take a minute and mull it over and actually realize what I'm saying isn't what you think I'm saying.

*Edit*
Oh, and EVERY NECRON KIT COMES WITH EVERYTHING YOU NEED. Except for the crypteks.

I am done arguing with you, your points make zero sense, you are simply arguing for the sake of arguing.. It is ok for me to convert models that 'obviously' can take upgrade, but GW 'obviously' chose to make the distinction between power 'swords' from 5th ed and power weapons in 6th ed. So if you have problems with people using the system, complain to GW about the RULE BOOK and stop trolling my thread. Furthermore, the kits lacking upgrades far exceed the ones that have all of them, GW hasn't saw fit to add EVERY upgrade to tactical marine kits and I don't see them doing so any time soon otherwise they'd have done it years ago.