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.

We've all gone sorely off topic. It doesn't matter whether or not you gain an advantage from the power weapon sub-type or not, that has absolutely no baring on the rules. Just because an option is better does NOT mean it is against the rules.

The reason you can't do stupid gak like modeling your units' head above his body is because there is no rule that ALLOWS you to do so. Remember, this is a game where you can't do anything unless the rules say you -can-. The rules DO say, however, that my DCA have power weapons. They do not specify which type of power weapon they have. The rules allow me to look at the model and then, based off of that, decide which power weapon they have. This means, explicitly, that if I gave them power axes instead of power swords they would indeed have power axes. I'm allowed by the rules to do this. Nowhere do the rules say that you may alter the physique of your miniature men in order to give them physical advantages. It becomes a clear case of MFW rather than MFA.

I'd also like to bring up the point that not all power weapons are like this. For instance, my primary armies are Orks and DE. The DE have a slew of units that have the option of purchasing a power weapon for 5-10 points. This can be any of the 3 stock power weapon profiles, because it simply says "power weapon". What I CAN'T do is choose an Agoniser and decide to use the Power Axe rules along with the Agoniser rules, because an Agoniser having it's own rules to begin with becomes an "unusual power weapon."

This is all very cut and dry, I have no idea how some people don't seem to understand it.

Shikahake7 wrote:This is all very cut and dry, I have no idea how some people don't seem to understand it.

You and me both friend, you and me both.

Luckily though a picture of an axe-wielding DCA has been found, so in that specific case, it is allowed anyway under the "You can model what GW has modeled or drawn" rule, written in invisible ink on page 667 of the rulebook.

DarknessEternal wrote:

htj wrote:
Can't speak for CSM, but in Daemons it's an 'Axe of Khorne.' I cannot remember whether it is described as a power weapon, but it is explicitely an axe. If it is also a power weapon, then it's going to be a power axe. Meaning +2S... on an MC, so striking at base Initiative, not 1... Oh my.

There's no such thing as an Axe of Khorne.

There are Hellblades, for Bloodcrushers and Bloodletters, which are always power swords according to the FAQ.

Presumably I'm getting mixed up with Fantasy then. My bad.

IdentifyZero wrote:

htj wrote:

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.

DCA have the 2nd weapon for purposes of close combat attack bonus (2nd weapon bonus).

It was not meant to give them the benefit of striking at AP3 and normal initiative or choosing to strike at +2STR/AP2 and lower initiative. If GW wanted them to have such an advantaged or intended it, it would have been some kind of option for them prior; this is logic, don't even bother to ask me how I know this, use some common sense.

It's not an issue to remodel your DCA to have another type of power weapon other than swords, so long as they ONLY use that type. Converting a DCA to have 2 different types of power weapons is an issue and is Modelling for Advantage and it will likely be FAQed.

Why are you writing like you're disagreeing with a point I made, when you don't appear to be disagreeing in any way? I say that it will be an issue where it comes to unusual units, such as DCAs, you make narky comments about common sense whilst explaining how it would be an issue of unusual units such as DCAs. Bit of a disconnect there. As to the not-intended-to-work-that-way stuff, DCAs were designed to work under 5th. They didn't intend anything to interact with the new power weapons in any way. This, in fact, is common sense. Don't bother to ask me how I know it, eh?

IdentifyZero wrote: If GW wanted them to have such an advantaged or intended it, it would have been some kind of option for them prior; this is logic, don't even bother to ask me how I know this, use some common sense.

You do realize GW actually changed them from Power Swords to Power Weapons in the SoB FAQ? If DCA weren't meant for this advantage, they would have just kept them as power swords. This is logic, don't even bother to ask me how I know this, use some common sense.

Kommissar Kel wrote:

Shandara wrote:It's tactical flexibility.

With axe/sword combo you can use the swords against everything BUT terminators and switch to axes for terminators (at least taking them with you).

I know I mentioned that much, much earlier in this thread.

A S3 AP3 attacks against T4, S4, I4 models Aren't any scarier than they were when they were flat ignores Armor saves. The DCA kills against Tac Marines go down with the sword due to getting an average of 16.666% less scored wounds.

It all actually Evens out(against MEQ especially):
Power Swords: Less scored wounds
Power Maul: More MEQ saves
Power Axe: Less attacks due to dead DCA
Power Lance: Effects dependent wholly on whether or not you get to Charge.

And now with overwatch, Random charge distances, and most units receiving flamers, etc soon; You would need a unit of 10 DCA starting just to have enough survive the Charging process to do any real damage against the targets. On top of that they are going to need to get themselves awfully close before the charge to ensure that those models slaughtered by overwatch do not cause the charge to fail(which is likely to open them up to at least 1 turn of shooting while they get close enough to move and then charge).

For DCA:
vs MEQ you want swords for striking first with AP3
vs TEQ you want axes to break the 2+ save with AP2

I don't see how it can even out. The axes are bad against MEQ, because they strike first, the swords are bad against TEQ because they don't ignore their armor.

That's why you want both types and the rules do suggest this is allowed.

I honestly don't see what the problem is. I think the power weapon sub-types are all fairly balanced considering they have their different uses and drawbacks. Sure, some armies will want 1 or 2 vs another .. but that's how it is with many rules. It all comes down to personal preference, and what's wrong with that? When did giving us more options and depth become a bad thing?

And regardless of what the name of the weapon is itself, if it's ruled on the character's wargear as a "power sword" it should be a power sword, if it's ruled as "power weapon" it can be whatever the player chooses to model it. It can be named the righteous power dildo of devastation for all I care, if it states in it's rules it's a power axe, it's a damned power axe.

As well, choosing your own wargear within the legal [/i]options[i] and then modeling appropriately by being creative, regardless of what the official models are/have been, is 100% part of the game. How you can tell me that because they don't make an official model using combi-plasma, or a combi-plasma Terminator arm for my CSM Termies that I'm not legally entitled to use combi-plasma at all, even though the codex states it as an option for them?

Joe Mama wrote:OH YEAH. AXE WIELDING DCA ARE NOW LEGAL. *raises the roof* *does the worm, then the MC Hammer dance, throws out back*.

The Monstrous Creature Hammer dance sounds difficult and painful /nerdmodeoff

Shandara wrote:I don't see how it can even out. The axes are bad against MEQ, because they strike first, the swords are bad against TEQ because they don't ignore their armor.

That's why you want both types and the rules do suggest this is allowed.

In the first sentence you say you do not see how it can even out.

In the second sentence you show how they even out.

The thing you are focusing on is the strengths(Pros) of the 2 weapons; you are not looking at all of their weaknesses: Axes wound Marines(armor save irrelevant) on a 4+, Sword wound Marines(same as last Parenthetical) on a 5+.

While the Sword strikes first, it wounds less.

While the Axe wounds more often it strikes last.

Both weapons wind up causing a roughly equal amount of wounds to their preferred respective targets. Even against tac Termies, where most of the squad will also be striking at I1, they have a 5+ invulnerable save that will mitigate some of those extra wounds caused by Strength 4(roughly twice the percentage on average; Axes cause 16.666% more wounds, Termies save 33.333% of the time).

Redemption wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote: If GW wanted them to have such an advantaged or intended it, it would have been some kind of option for them prior; this is logic, don't even bother to ask me how I know this, use some common sense.

You do realize GW actually changed them from Power Swords to Power Weapons in the SoB FAQ? If DCA weren't meant for this advantage, they would have just kept them as power swords. This is logic, don't even bother to ask me how I know this, use some common sense.

I said

IT WAS NOT INTENDED FOR THEM TO HAVE 2 TYPES OF POWER WEAPONS EQUIPPED AT THE SAME TIME.

IdentifyZero wrote:IT WAS NOT INTENDED FOR THEM TO HAVE 2 TYPES OF POWER WEAPONS EQUIPPED AT THE SAME TIME.

That's your assumption. It is not absolute fact.

Again, if it wasn't intended, they could have easily given them one power weapon and one close combat weapon like they did in previous editions.

IdentifyZero wrote:

Redemption wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote: If GW wanted them to have such an advantaged or intended it, it would have been some kind of option for them prior; this is logic, don't even bother to ask me how I know this, use some common sense.

You do realize GW actually changed them from Power Swords to Power Weapons in the SoB FAQ? If DCA weren't meant for this advantage, they would have just kept them as power swords. This is logic, don't even bother to ask me how I know this, use some common sense.

Hey Genius, read my posts before replying, your grasp of english or your grasp of reading my posts is terrible.

I never said they could not swap to another power weapon. THAT IS FINE! Reading Comprehension for the win!

I said

IT WAS NOT INTENDED FOR THEM TO HAVE 2 TYPES OF POWER WEAPONS EQUIPPED AT THE SAME TIME.

Kindly point out where that is stated in the rules or FAQ.

IdentifyZero wrote:I said

IT WAS NOT INTENDED FOR THEM TO HAVE 2 TYPES OF POWER WEAPONS EQUIPPED AT THE SAME TIME.

Holy Poop!

Identify Zero is Either Adam Troke, Jeremy Vetock, Matt Ward, Or whoever wrote the FAQs!

We have us a Game Developer right here in the thread explaining to us exactly what their intent was!


What's that Identify Zero?

You are not a GW Game developer?


But, then how do you know what there intent was.




Crap -on-a-cracker!

Identify Zero is a Psyker!

A real Live Psyker!


Or you don't know their intent and the rules allow what the rules allow.

so whats to stop me from say... converting my sammael on a jetbike and giving him an axe or even a spear (cos it would look coolio)

I have seen no indication that GW pours over the minutia the way players do.

The "intent" of any rule, especially an interaction between multiple rules, is as irrelevant as it is impossible to know.

I agree, modeling for two types of weapons seems like a hack of the rules, but only because we don't see things like it very often.

RAW, I'm not sure there's a problem with it. And that's what matters.

Formosa wrote:so whats to stop me from say... converting my sammael on a jetbike and giving him an axe or even a spear (cos it would look coolio)

Do his rules say "Power weapon" or "Power Sword"?

Or something else? I'm not familiar with his rules.

Anyone who had theirs modeled with different power weapons a month ago were just as legal as they are now; the main rules just changed what they actually do.
Welcome to a new edition.

rigeld2 wrote:

Formosa wrote:so whats to stop me from say... converting my sammael on a jetbike and giving him an axe or even a spear (cos it would look coolio)

Do his rules say "Power weapon" or "Power Sword"?

Or something else? I'm not familiar with his rules.

"the Raven sword is a master crafted power weapon" so its a power weapon... but its name is the Raven Sword... see the issue

Wouldn't that one fall under the unusual power weapons (due to having the master-crafted rule) and thus be AP3?

GK Nemisis Force Halberd is called a Halberd; but does not use the Rules for a Force Axe.

I see no Problem in a Lance Formed Raven Sword.

Kommissar Kel wrote:GK Nemisis Force Halberd is called a Halberd; but does not use the Rules for a Force Axe.

I see no Problem in a Lance Formed Raven Sword.

A GK Nemesis Force Halberd clearly falls into the Unusual category.

A Master crafted power weapon is less clear cut.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:GK Nemisis Force Halberd is called a Halberd; but does not use the Rules for a Force Axe.

I see no Problem in a Lance Formed Raven Sword.

A GK Nemesis Force Halberd clearly falls into the Unusual category.

A Master crafted power weapon is less clear cut.

Yes, I know.

So does Kharn the Betrayer's Gorechild(care to Venture a Guess as to what kind of Power weapon Gorechild is on top of being Unusual?).

Kommissar Kel wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:GK Nemisis Force Halberd is called a Halberd; but does not use the Rules for a Force Axe.

I see no Problem in a Lance Formed Raven Sword.

A GK Nemesis Force Halberd clearly falls into the Unusual category.

A Master crafted power weapon is less clear cut.

Yes, I know.

So does Kharn the Betrayer's Gorechild(care to Venture a Guess as to what kind of Power weapon Gorechild is on top of being Unusual?).

A chainaxe genius and I don't appreciate your tone in your post. Your attempt to reply to me earlier only shows you as a troll.

IdentifyZero wrote:

htj wrote:

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.

DCA have the 2nd weapon for purposes of close combat attack bonus (2nd weapon bonus).

IdentifyZero wrote:[
It was not meant to give them the benefit of striking at AP3 and normal initiative or choosing to strike at +2STR/AP2 and lower initiative. If GW wanted them to have such an advantaged or intended it, it would have been some kind of option for them prior; this is logic, don't even bother to ask me how I know this, use some common sense.

This strikes me as more of argument about intent rather than fact. You're still failing to grasp the actual change that 6th edition introduces regarding Power Weapons.

IdentifyZero wrote:[
It's not an issue to remodel your DCA to have another type of power weapon other than swords, so long as they ONLY use that type.

This is unequivocally wrong given the new Power Weapon rules. There is absolutely nothing that binds the DCA to only use Power Swords. They are constrained to use Power Weapons, which the rulebook defines as multiple types (for you to choose from).

IdentifyZero wrote:[
Converting a DCA to have 2 different types of power weapons is an issue and is Modelling for Advantage and it will likely be FAQed.

IdentifyZero wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:GK Nemisis Force Halberd is called a Halberd; but does not use the Rules for a Force Axe.

I see no Problem in a Lance Formed Raven Sword.

A GK Nemesis Force Halberd clearly falls into the Unusual category.

A Master crafted power weapon is less clear cut.

Yes, I know.

So does Kharn the Betrayer's Gorechild(care to Venture a Guess as to what kind of Power weapon Gorechild is on top of being Unusual?).

A chainaxe genius and I don't appreciate your tone in your post. Your attempt to reply to me earlier only shows you as a troll.

No, A power Axe. Genius.

You may want to read the rules since you cannot read minds.

I also don't really care whether you appreciate the tone in my post; I don't appreciate a post claiming knowledge of intent and that said intent is clearly counter to the possibilities allowed by the rules.

IdentifyZero wrote:I said

IT WAS NOT INTENDED FOR THEM TO HAVE 2 TYPES OF POWER WEAPONS EQUIPPED AT THE SAME TIME.

Did you just win the internets because you shouted in ALL-CAPS the loudest? Come on dude. Seriously? What's next, you posting a picture of your face with the words "I WIN" on it? All caps and random pictures don't add to your argument in any way.

PS - You still have "forgotten" to answer why GW had multiple FAQs changing entries from "power sword" to "power weapon" (most relevant in the SOB FAQ). Care to analyze that for intent?

I think that's enough. There are a LOT of rules violations in the past few pages; some of you are going to regret that.