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.

DevianID wrote: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?

Show me permission to change a model mid-game (with the exception of taking a wrecked/immobilised skimmer off its base). You do that and I will have no problem with you changing a modes power weapon mid-game.

DevianID wrote:I am still on jidmah's side here. GW doesn't say that the type of weapon is chosen when you make your list.

Do the rules present any other time to choose optional load-outs on models?

Power weapon is the only option in many cases.

Power Weapon is the weapon type. The option is to take one of the various types of Power Weapons.

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?

Are you talking about switching models, or just declaring that your power axe is now a power sword?

Because neither of those are going to fly on the table.

Here's a fun question. Along the same lines of what everyone is arguing about... A burna boy can use his burna(If he didn't flame in the previous shooting phase) as a power weapon. Thats all it states in the RAW. Soo..... can I use any kind of power weapon stats available to best fit the situation? Probably not. But then.. wtf stats do I use?!?!?!?!?

I am also not at the point where I can take a side on the modeling all the different power weapons.

EDIT: Nevermind. Found Unusual Force Weapons pg60.

insaniak wrote:

DevianID wrote:I am still on jidmah's side here. GW doesn't say that the type of weapon is chosen when you make your list.

Do the rules present any other time to choose optional load-outs on models?

Power weapon is the only option in many cases.

Power Weapon is the weapon type. The option is to take one of the various Sub-types of Power Weapons.

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?

Are you talking about switching models, or just declaring that your power axe is now a power sword?

Because neither of those are going to fly on the table.

Just had to correct that 1 bit; As you had stated represented the Variations of Power weapon as being different weapon types in their own right(and we know how certain posters get when you make such statements).

Daiyo:Unusual power weapons are on the same page as power weapons(same concept as unusal force weapons, but with power weapons instead, since force weapons rules have no bearing whatsoever on power weapons)

Do the rules present any other time to choose optional load-outs on models?

2 things. First, the power weapons are not optional loadouts in this situation. Second, the rules never give us the option of what kind of power weapon to choose.

Instead we look to the model--not to army list, not to load-out. No, the models wargear is "power weapon" with no other qualifiers.

Power Weapon is the weapon type. The option is to take one of the various types of Power Weapons.

False. I have skimmed the rules through a few times, and I haven't found where the type of power weapon was optional like you said it was. Now, I havent had a huge amount of time with the book, so perhaps I am wrong, but if I am then you should be able to show me something that says you get to pick what kind of power weapon type goes on a model.

The rules state that if the rules for the model do not tell you what kind of power weapon(Sword, Axe, Maul, or Lance), you look to the model.

In this case the DCAs have a Blank "Power weapon" in their rules(2 of them actually).

The stock models Come with either a Single sword, or a Pair of swords(and both of those models have a Pair of Daggers at their hips).

However if you were to convert your DCAs(which many may have when Power weapons was the only type of melee weapon you could get) to have Axes, clubs, or Spears; then the sub-type of power weapon you use will be that which your model is holding.

What has been debated for the last 16 pages is really whether putting axes or clubs on your DCA(or any other model that comes with a particular subtype as a stock model) is legal and/or modeling for advantage.

Here's one I'm wondering about as a Necron player. What would a Lychguard's Hyperphase Sword be classified as? It has "sword" in it's name but has the appearance of an axe. I would much rather run it as an axe than a sword. Losing 1 point of initiative is worth ganing +1 AP and Strength.

This had just come up in a recent thread(Page or 2 back already though).

The Hyperphase sword is modeled after a Kopesh

As the Kopesh was a Farily Top-front heavy Sword it also worked similar to an Axe.

Discuss it with your opponent, but be sure to remain consistent throughout your Army(If 1 hyper phase is an Axe, they should all be axes, vise verse for swords).

insaniak wrote: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.

'Modelling for advantage' is not in the rules, so I fail to see the distinction. Modelling within WYSIWYG is allowed, and in fact encouraged by GW, and since axes, mauls and spears are all WYSIWYG power weapons, the issue remains cut and dry in my eyes.

And to clarify: Modelling all your units to be crawling along the ground to gain benefits is also allowed within the rules, I believe. It is modelling for advantage of course, and wether or not you'd put up with it is up to you - I probably wouldn't. But I wouldn't presume to base my refusal to play such an opponent on the rules, it's just really bad sportsmanship. You might argue that swapping two power swords for a power axe and a power maul is bad sportsmanship, too, and that's fine - it's an individual matter where you draw the line. But there's no basis for it in the rules.

I guess to break the arguments for more understandable form, we should use new definition
Modelling For Wargear:
MFW means converting model to have codex legal wargear options that are not present on the "official" model.
Examples: Converting model to have combi-flamer instead of combi-plasma. Converting model to have Power Axe instead of Power Sword.
Strict interpretation of this is that for multi-part plastic kits using weapons from other kits is MFW, examples include giving plasma gun or plasma cannon to tactical marine as they're not options for the official tactical marine kit.
There also seems to be interpretation that argues: "If there exists an official model X with wargear option Z, converting official model Y to have wargear option Z is not MFW".

For sake of argument, it is assumed that all MFW is done using proper sized weapons/other wargear and gives no other in-game advantage except by being WYSIWYG representation of a codex legal wargear option.

Now there are two sides to the DCA argument:
Joemama argues that Modelling For Wargear is distinct, separate concept from Modelling For Advantage. MFW is just representing wargear choices in WYSIWYG manner and MFA still follows the 5e accepted definition, where the in-game advantage gained by MFA is completely separate from the wargear modelled (but obviously might interact with the wargear).

Jidmah argues that Modelling For Wargear is Modelling For Advantage. If official model doesn't have wargear option X modelled, then converting model to have that codex legal wargear is MFA.

Note that arguing that MFW is MFA in some cases (Converting DCA to have power sword and axe) and not in other (converting certain Tyranid models to have Lash Whips) is IMO extremely hypocritical. In both cases, the modelling will give you in-game advantage of having specific wargear. Either both are MFA or neither is.
Especially when you consider of the two "official" Citadel DCA models, one isn't even WYSIWYG and thus is "illegal" to use in game.

Considering that GW made Errata for C:SOB in the FAQ, changing DCA Power Swords to Power Weapons, there is no way you can argue in good faith that "DCA were only supposed to have Power Swords, not other Power weapons".

DevianID wrote:... so perhaps I am wrong, but if I am then you should be able to show me something that says you get to pick what kind of power weapon type goes on a model.

You're correct in that the rules don't specifically state that you can choose... But if you can't, what power weapon does an Assault Sergeant have?

I'm choosing to interpret the power weapon rules as meaning that you choose the weapon as you would any other gear, and the bit about referring to the model is just to remove confusion from someone claiming that their sword welding model actually has an axe... Because the other interpretation leads to lunacy.

Luide wrote:Jidmah argues that Modelling For Wargear is Modelling For Advantage. If official model doesn't have wargear option X modelled, then converting model to have that codex legal wargear is MFA.

Please do not misquote me. I claim that a power axe is not legal wargear for a model that does not come with axes.

Jidmah wrote:

Luide wrote:Jidmah argues that Modelling For Wargear is Modelling For Advantage. If official model doesn't have wargear option X modelled, then converting model to have that codex legal wargear is MFA.

Please do not misquote me. I claim that a power axe is not legal wargear for a model that does not come with axes.

And why are you drawing your arbitrary line there?

There is no Tyranid Prime model. What wargear am I restricted to?

Jidmah wrote:

Luide wrote:Jidmah argues that Modelling For Wargear is Modelling For Advantage. If official model doesn't have wargear option X modelled, then converting model to have that codex legal wargear is MFA.

Please do not misquote me. I claim that a power axe is not legal wargear for a model that does not come with axes.

And again, your opinion that has absolutely zero rules support. In fact it flies in the face of the 6th edition change to power weapons as whole.

Brother Ramses wrote:

Jidmah wrote:

Luide wrote:Jidmah argues that Modelling For Wargear is Modelling For Advantage. If official model doesn't have wargear option X modelled, then converting model to have that codex legal wargear is MFA.

Please do not misquote me. I claim that a power axe is not legal wargear for a model that does not come with axes.

And again, your opinion that has absolutely zero rules support. In fact it flies in the face of the 6th edition change to power weapons as whole.

Giving a model an axe that doesn't come with one is the exact same as modelling your model's eyes 3 inches above his head to abuse LOS.
Both unprohibited. Both dick moves.

I think we need GW to come out and explicitly state that modeling an axe or sword for the PW is now either okay or not okay since the ruleset as released does not give us clarification.

So until then, TOs and friendly games reach their own individual consensus.

WarOne wrote:I think we need GW to come out and explicitly state that modeling an axe or sword for the PW is now either okay or not okay since the ruleset as released does not give us clarification.

So until then, TOs and friendly games reach their own individual consensus.

The question is more, is conversion allowed?

Say GW releases a DCA with an axe or a Howling Banshee with an axe tomorrow

According to the rules this would be a legal model, with legal wargear.

Would it be illegal to modify a DCA/Banshee you have to use an axe? I doubt anyone would disagree.

Now, GW has not (yet) released such a model.

Yet, some think that converting to a possible and legal set of wargear is not allowed, just because the model doesn't exist yet.

Testify wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

Jidmah wrote:

Luide wrote:Jidmah argues that Modelling For Wargear is Modelling For Advantage. If official model doesn't have wargear option X modelled, then converting model to have that codex legal wargear is MFA.

Please do not misquote me. I claim that a power axe is not legal wargear for a model that does not come with axes.

And again, your opinion that has absolutely zero rules support. In fact it flies in the face of the 6th edition change to power weapons as whole.

Giving a model an axe that doesn't come with one is the exact same as modelling your model's eyes 3 inches above his head to abuse LOS.
Both unprohibited. Both dick moves.

Models don't come with axes, swords, or mauls that are specified by GW to be axes, swords, or mauls. They come with POWER WEAPONS, of which are determined by what has been modeled on the model. GW has determined that POWER WEAPONS are all equal and balanced in value now via points cost and associated positives and negatives of each power weapon type.

So no, modeling an axe on a model that does not come with one is exactly balanced and of equal value as modeling a sword, spear, or maul instead of said axe. That is not my opinion, that is the exact stance that GW has taken by making all power weapon choices equal in points value.

Brother Ramses wrote:
Models don't come with axes, swords, or mauls that are specified by GW to be axes, swords, or mauls.

Yes they do. Look:

They're holding swords. Giving them anything other than swords is giving them an advantage that they are not supposed to have.

Brother Ramses wrote:
They come with POWER WEAPONS, of which are determined by what has been modeled on the model. GW has determined that POWER WEAPONS are all equal and balanced in value now via points cost and associated positives and negatives of each power weapon type.

Really? Where do the words "equal" or "balanced" appear?
Notice that chaplains were FAQed to explicitly state that they come with a power maul as standard and they do not have the option to swap it for a sword or axe.

Brother Ramses wrote:
So no, modeling an axe on a model that does not come with one is exactly balanced and of equal value as modeling a sword, spear, or maul instead of said axe. That is not my opinion, that is the exact stance that GW has taken by making all power weapon choices equal in points value.

No it's not you've made it up. Feel free to quote where GW say it though.

Testify wrote:Notice that chaplains were FAQed to explicitly state that they come with a power maul as standard and they do not have the option to swap it for a sword or axe.

But Sisters of Battle were explicitly FAQ'ed to have power weapons rather than the previous power swords. How do you reconcile that?

tgjensen wrote:

Testify wrote:Notice that chaplains were FAQed to explicitly state that they come with a power maul as standard and they do not have the option to swap it for a sword or axe.

But Sisters of Battle were explicitly FAQ'ed to have power weapons rather than the previous power swords. How do you reconcile that?

I don't know. Didn't know sisters of battle had a codex to be honest with you.

Chaplains were probably FAQ'ed because their crozius was a special weapon which 'counted as a power weapon'.

Most codexes have a FAQ where every occurence of 'power sword' (specific type) is replaced with 'power weapon' (generic).

Testify wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

Jidmah wrote:

Luide wrote:Jidmah argues that Modelling For Wargear is Modelling For Advantage. If official model doesn't have wargear option X modelled, then converting model to have that codex legal wargear is MFA.

Please do not misquote me. I claim that a power axe is not legal wargear for a model that does not come with axes.

And again, your opinion that has absolutely zero rules support. In fact it flies in the face of the 6th edition change to power weapons as whole.

Giving a model an axe that doesn't come with one is the exact same as modelling your model's eyes 3 inches above his head to abuse LOS.
Both unprohibited. Both dick moves.

So what weapons can I give my tac squad sergeant? Just BP and Chainsword? No other choices in the box...

*edit* Also, is it a dick move to have 2 Daemon hammers in a unit of GKs? Only one comes in the box.

Slinky wrote:

Testify wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

Jidmah wrote:

Luide wrote:Jidmah argues that Modelling For Wargear is Modelling For Advantage. If official model doesn't have wargear option X modelled, then converting model to have that codex legal wargear is MFA.

Please do not misquote me. I claim that a power axe is not legal wargear for a model that does not come with axes.

And again, your opinion that has absolutely zero rules support. In fact it flies in the face of the 6th edition change to power weapons as whole.

Giving a model an axe that doesn't come with one is the exact same as modelling your model's eyes 3 inches above his head to abuse LOS.
Both unprohibited. Both dick moves.

So what weapons can I give my tac squad sergeant? Just BP and Chainsword? No other choices in the box...

Paint it blue and it's a power sword.

Testify wrote:

Slinky wrote:

Testify wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

Jidmah wrote:

Luide wrote:Jidmah argues that Modelling For Wargear is Modelling For Advantage. If official model doesn't have wargear option X modelled, then converting model to have that codex legal wargear is MFA.

Please do not misquote me. I claim that a power axe is not legal wargear for a model that does not come with axes.

And again, your opinion that has absolutely zero rules support. In fact it flies in the face of the 6th edition change to power weapons as whole.

Giving a model an axe that doesn't come with one is the exact same as modelling your model's eyes 3 inches above his head to abuse LOS.
Both unprohibited. Both dick moves.

So what weapons can I give my tac squad sergeant? Just BP and Chainsword? No other choices in the box...

Paint it blue and it's a power sword.

Lol...oh, you're not joking?

Seems to me that you, Jidmah, and like-minded individuals are failing to grasp this fundamental change in 6th edition. You're mindset is still grounded in 4th. GW has changed what it means for a model to be equipped with a Power Weapon. Previously, a Power Weapon was just that, a power weapon. It didn't matter if the model was holding a sword or an axe. If it was called a power weapon it did the same thing. All of that is different now. If a model's comes equipped with a Power Weapon, and the unit entry does not specify what the form of that weapon is, you as the owner get to decide that. I think it's a great rule that can change the dynamic/role of a squad. Magnetize a bunch different power weapon types and see what your squad can do with it.

Not that you should need too, but If you're still having trouble translate this rule mechanic into a flow chart and it becomes easily understandable.

-Yad

Yad wrote:
Lol...oh, you're not joking?

Seems to me that you, Jidmah, and like-minded individuals are failing to grasp this fundamental change in 6th edition. You're mindset is still grounded in 4th. GW has changed what it means for a model to be equipped with a Power Weapon. Previously, a Power Weapon was just that, a power weapon. It didn't matter if the model was holding a sword or an axe. If it was called a power weapon it did the same thing. All of that is different now. If a model's comes equipped with a Power Weapon, and the unit entry does not specify what the form of that weapon is, you as the owner get to decide that. I think it's a great rule that can change the dynamic/role of a squad. Magnetize a bunch different power weapon types and see what your squad can do with it.

Not that you should need too, but If you're still having trouble translate this rule mechanic into a flow chart and it becomes easily understandable.

-Yad

Please don't be condescending.
Until the new codexes come out we have no way of knowing what GW were thinking. Until then if you're willing to put up with being charged by Death Company with 5 strength 7 attacks each then, by all means, enjoy your games.
Games workshop did not say "Feel free to pick whichever type of power weapon you like". YOU have decided that is what they mean, and are acting as though that line is in the rules - it is not.

Testify wrote:

tgjensen wrote:

Testify wrote:Notice that chaplains were FAQed to explicitly state that they come with a power maul as standard and they do not have the option to swap it for a sword or axe.

But Sisters of Battle were explicitly FAQ'ed to have power weapons rather than the previous power swords. How do you reconcile that?

I don't know. Didn't know sisters of battle had a codex to be honest with you.

How about the FAQ for normal marines. Pg 2. Left hand collumn 7th point.

Var - Power Swords
In the bestiary and army list, replace all references to "power
sword" with "power weapon".

Right there it says that you have a power weapon not a sword. Now the rules tell us to look at the model iteself (NOT THE OFFICIAL MODEL) to see what kind of power weapon it has. Just because a kit comes with something doesn't mean that those are the only options you can use. Otherwise you can never run a combi-weapon on a tac sgt. The option is there so it is now MFA if I convert one up? Is this what we have sunk to? So I guess the whole BT upgrade box is worthless in that case. Converting is a part of the hobby, and using the options at your disposal is a part of the game.
Also Testify are you saying that I can't run a PF on my sgt that he must have a power sword or a chain sword? My codex would disagree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Testify wrote:

Yad wrote:
Lol...oh, you're not joking?

Seems to me that you, Jidmah, and like-minded individuals are failing to grasp this fundamental change in 6th edition. You're mindset is still grounded in 4th. GW has changed what it means for a model to be equipped with a Power Weapon. Previously, a Power Weapon was just that, a power weapon. It didn't matter if the model was holding a sword or an axe. If it was called a power weapon it did the same thing. All of that is different now. If a model's comes equipped with a Power Weapon, and the unit entry does not specify what the form of that weapon is, you as the owner get to decide that. I think it's a great rule that can change the dynamic/role of a squad. Magnetize a bunch different power weapon types and see what your squad can do with it.

Not that you should need too, but If you're still having trouble translate this rule mechanic into a flow chart and it becomes easily understandable.

-Yad

Please don't be condescending.
Until the new codexes come out we have no way of knowing what GW were thinking. Until then if you're willing to put up with being charged by Death Company with 5 strength 7 attacks each then, by all means, enjoy your games.
Games workshop did not say "Feel free to pick whichever type of power weapon you like". YOU have decided that is what they mean, and are acting as though that line is in the rules - it is not.

No they said look at the model. Does my marine in PA have a PA sized Power Axe? Yes then so be it. I have followed the rules and thus I have an ax. I and several others have shown you where it says to look at the model to see what kind of PW it is. Where is your support that says that you can only have a sword since that is the only available option in the box?

Testify wrote:Until the new codexes come out we have no way of knowing what GW were thinking.

Yes we do, because they spelled it out. If your model just has a generic power weapon, look at the model to determine what type. So, are you allowed to convert your model? GW has always encouraged conversions - just look at any hobby section of any rulebook or codex - so long as you stick to WYSIWYG. So what would be WYSIWYG? Would a power axe be OK? Yes, because that's a power weapon too. So is a power maul, and a power spear.

If you convert any of your models for whom you have purchased a power weapon from the codex to hold a sword, an axe, a maul, or a spear, then you are complying with WYSIWYG and in the clear.

Now look at the model again. What type of power weapon does it have?

Akroma06 wrote:

How about the FAQ for normal marines. Pg 2. Left hand collumn 7th point.

Var - Power Swords
In the bestiary and army list, replace all references to "power
sword" with "power weapon".

Right there it says that you have a power weapon not a sword. Now the rules tell us to look at the model iteself (NOT THE OFFICIAL MODEL) to see what kind of power weapon it has. Just because a kit comes with something doesn't mean that those are the only options you can use. Otherwise you can never run a combi-weapon on a tac sgt. The option is there so it is now MFA if I convert one up? Is this what we have sunk to? So I guess the whole BT upgrade box is worthless in that case. Converting is a part of the hobby, and using the options at your disposal is a part of the game.
Also Testify are you saying that I can't run a PF on my sgt that he must have a power sword or a chain sword? My codex would disagree.

No because you are explicitly allowed to take a power fist. I am not denying that what you are saying isn't explicitly disallowed by the rules, just suggesting that it is MFA, and like all these things is open to interpritation. No one would really mind what you stuck on a tactical squad sargent - the issue is things like assassins, flying deamons, howling banshees, et al.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

tgjensen wrote:

Testify wrote:Until the new codexes come out we have no way of knowing what GW were thinking.

Yes we do, because they spelled it out. If your model just has a generic power weapon, look at the model to determine what type. So, are you allowed to convert your model? GW has always encouraged conversions - just look at any hobby section of any rulebook or codex - so long as you stick to WYSIWYG. So what would be WYSIWYG? Would a power axe be OK? Yes, because that's a power weapon too. So is a power maul, and a power spear.

If you convert any of your models for whom you have purchased a power weapon from the codex to hold a sword, an axe, a maul, or a spear, then you are complying with WYSIWYG and in the clear.

Now look at the model again. What type of power weapon does it have?

Check line of sight through the model's eye view. I will stick my guy's head a few inches above his body in order to abuse this.
Same thing.
If your guys came with power swords and you've modelled them to something else, that's MFA.
I'm not judging you or anything, but if I was a guard player I'd probably be pretty vexed at facing S5 banshees, if I was a marine player I'd be pretty vexed by seeing them equipped with axes, etc.

Testify wrote:No one would really mind what you stuck on a tactical squad sargent - the issue is things like assassins, flying deamons, howling banshees, et al.

This is a valid point. It's where the new power weapon rules will interact with, shall we say, unusual units. Of course, the joke will be on you if you were to model power axes on your DCAs, just to have them ruled as Power Swords in a FAQ soon after.