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

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Therion**

Because me choosing legitimate wargear choices from my codex and modelling them is not MFA.

Seriously? Your lack of logic is astounding. Not only do you agree that you have modeled an official model to look like something else, and you agree that you've gained an advantage of it, but you're refusing to say you've modeled for advantage. Additionally while saying that, you're saying that if I make a crouching Wraithlord or attach sponsons to the front of the Land Raider or attach 15 inches wide extra armor to the sides of my Rhino, I am modelling for advantage.

In every case here the player has taken a miniature, then modelled it to look like something else, and gained an advantage. I'm awestruck by having to explain simple English. If you're so adamant on doing what you intend to do and your opponents allow it you don't have to try to make yourself feel better about modelling for advantage by arguing ceasessly about it on an internet forum. Your argument is unsupportable. It wouldn't be allowed at any of the grand tournaments I've attended through the years. Modelling for advantage has never been allowed, and most hobbyists avoid it at all costs.

**Jidmah**

kirsanth wrote:
Jidmah wrote:Oh, and please quote the rule which prevents me doing that.
Now I get what you meant, I did misread you. You mean adding weapons the vehicle can take onto the turret another weapon can take?

I do not see why that would even relate to the discussion.

All those four weapons are found on turrets, from official citadel bits. Due to the nature of the battlewagon model, you will only be able to fire all of them very rarely, due to them blocking each other's sight, or simply being on the wrong side of the wagon.

If I stack them on top of each other, I create a huge tower of weapons which will never have LoS issues or are unable to shoot. If changing a model which is provided by GW with nothing but swords, and is described as using swords in its fluff solely for the purpose of gaining an advantage in-game, is not modeling for advantage, then stacking turrets isn't either.

The point is, you are supposed to use a model exactly as if it were a model provided by GW, no matter what it looks like. At least this is what almost all people converting models to have cool locking models do. If you like models with axes, model them with axes. They still count as swords, if GW doesn't give them axes.

And I don't even know if axes are better than swords.

**insaniak**

IdentifyZero wrote:Your tactical sergeant example doesn't fit in with the DCA having a sword/axe. He is a unique upgrade unit that can pay for any wargear options listed in his entry and can in theory, have avariety of combinations of weapons without issue.

And this, I think, is where you're running into conflict with this idea.

Because under the current rules, the DCA is also a unit that can have a variety of weapons according to the rules. So essentially what your argument is coming down to is the idea that plastic models can legally have whatever weapons are allowed by their unit entry, while FInecast or metal models can only legally have the weapons they come with.

Which just isn't going to fly with most players.

I suspect a large part of the cause for the division of opinion here is that some people think that all three power weapons are intended to be equal (as their rules all have their own pros and cons) and some feel that axes and mauls are inherently better and should be an extra rather than a regular option.

Since GW didn't add a points cost for changing your generic power weapon to an axe or a maul, it seems that GW themselves are going with the first option. And as such, which you choose to put on your model is entirely up to you.

**kirsanth**

IdentifyZero wrote:
kirsanth wrote:
Jidmah wrote:Please quote the exact rule allowing you to freely choose which weapons you can equip.
Each codex is rather explicit about that.

So is the rule which states you use whichever the model is armed with.

I agree with this much. That is why I am confused by the rest.

**pretre**

insaniak wrote:And this, I think, is where you're running into conflict with this idea.

Because under the current rules, the DCA is also a unit that can have a variety of weapons according to the rules. So essentially what your argument is coming down to is the idea that plastic models can legally have whatever weapons are allowed by their unit entry, while FInecast or metal models can only legally have the weapons they come with.

Which just isn't going to fly with most players.

I suspect a large part of the cause for the division of opinion here is that some people think that all three power weapons are intended to be equal (as their rules all have their own pros and cons) and some feel that axes and mauls are inherently better and should be an extra rather than a regular option.

Since GW didn't add a points cost for changing your generic power weapon to an axe or a maul, it seems that GW themselves are going with the first option. And as such, which you choose to put on your model is entirely up to you.

I'm pretre and I endorse this posting.

**A Town Called Malus**

IdentifyZero wrote:
kirsanth wrote:
Jidmah wrote:Please quote the exact rule allowing you to freely choose which weapons you can equip.
Each codex is rather explicit about that.

So is the rule which states you use whichever the model is armed with.

Stating again though, since some of the thicker headed people keep ignoring me; I'm against you modelling one of each weapon on your Death Cult Assassin. If you convert your own DCAs, you can model them whatever way you want, as long as they can be identified with the weapon, if you model them with two different weapons, you can figure out where I stand on this.

I agree with the posters stating the DCA model is armed how it is, there is no additional profile or rules intended. The FAQ doesn't say, feel free to make DCA armed with 1 of each type of weapon you want or use whatever you like to represent a power weapon of subtype x.

It's quite clear now. In 5th you could use a sword, axe, halberd, maul all as normal power weapons (forget GK force weapons) with no difference in rules. Many models have shipped with different options (some with axe some with sword etc...). If you want to swap out that weapon type for another sure.

What's going on here is just MFA to create an even more powerful unit that has the versatility and advantage of two separate weapons with different rules.

Which is allowed under the current ruleset. The FAQ doesn't need to say "feel free to make DCA armed with 1 of each type of weapon you want or use" as the main rulebook already does that by saying that a model armed with a generic power weapon uses the rules for the weapons it is modelled with.

GW says that to determine what power weapon a model has you look at the weapon on the model in question. If that model is equipped with two power weapons in its wargear entry in its codex and is carrying a sword and an axe then those are the two power weapons it has.

**Savageconvoy**

Ok so looks like the gaming police are going to arrest the lot of you for gaming for advantage. Several counts of list building for advantage, Assembling models with wysiwyg weapons therefore modeling for advantage, playing in a competitive manner and therefore playing for advantage.

You heartless bastards should be ashamed. You should be drug out into the streets and your models melted down to make a knife to stab you with.

But is this seriously an argument? The person who points out that DCA models have swords used a Thunderwolf Calvary model before they were released. Obviously he had no problem modeling for advantage without comparing to the model by GW. The fact that they did not have one has little to do with your logical stand point.

**Polonius**

OK, congratulations. People model for advantage all the time. It's called "putting the weapons you want on a model."

I mean, every time I build a model, it's for an advantage. I didn't convert 20 praetorians to carry plasma guns because I think plasma guns look neat.

there are two ways to view this. One is clearly to look at the "official" model, make a call about what it's armed with, and require all units of that type use that power weapon. The other is to view any vague power weapon as essentially unlocking the "this model may exchange any power weapon for a power sword, power ax, or power maul."

What MFA has, to me at least, always meant is gaining a "meta" advantage by modelling. Meaning an advantage beyond simply taking the best possible rules for a model, but one that gives an advantage in play due to the physics of a miniatures game.

**nolzur**

Jidmah wrote:I wonder how you'd all react if I stack 6 Turrets on top of each other on my battlewagon. Or mounti a vindicator cannon on a turret. Or model my orks to hold huge metal sheets to block LoS.

That's about as much creative modeling as providing models with no options for axes whatsoever with such weapons.

You can put as many large items on your orks as you want. As it is clearly stated in the rulebook that any terrain or other features attached to a model cannot provide cover or block LoS to it, I'll still shoot your orks just as much as if they didn't have it, and your models will look ridiculous.

**Jidmah**

kirsanth wrote:
Jidmah wrote:Please quote the exact rule allowing you to freely choose which weapons you can equip.
Each codex is rather explicit about that.

Correct. The GK codex does not allow force axes.

kirsanth wrote:Do you guys claim MFA when ork player's paint their vehicles red? Or only the ones without red images on the website?

editing to add:
I have NEVER seen a red paint pot, of any variety, come with a vehicle.

Actually, rules do not require you to paint a vehicle red in oder to use RPJ, neither does it require you to pick RPJ when painting a vehicle red.

Stop spamming nonsense maybe, and find some rules instead?

That's the first sentence of the rules and it doesn't exclude conversions from citadel miniatures.

Conversions from citadel miniatures are not citadel miniatures. The are pretre models based on citadel miniatures.
Selling your conversions as citadel miniatures would be fraud.

**IdentifyZero**

pretre wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
pretre wrote:
Jidmah wrote:Replacing a model clearly using a sword (even in its fluff) with an axe is changing the model to gain an advantage. GW is not telling you to use whichever weapon you want. GW is telling you to look at the model to figure out which weapon it has. It clearly has a sword.

I converted my DCA from wyches. They do not clearly have swords. They clearly have a variety of weapons which I now need to classify as the different types of PW. That's perfectly legal.

Just like my orks don't get meltas from being converted from marines, your death cult assasins don't get power axes from being converted from witches.

That's because meltas aren't a legal choice for orks. Axes are for DCA.

pretre wrote:
IdentifyZero wrote:even if it seems like GW didn't intend people to be throwing axes, lances and mauls on them.

Why then did they make that an option? The rules seem to disagree with you.

Please quote the exact rule allowing you to freely choose which weapons you can equip. And please don't quote the one telling you to look at models which are made by citadel. Because "model" is defined in the very first sentence of the rules, excluding anything custom-built.

That is the one. I used legal citadel models to make my wyches in 5th ed.

Why are they suddenly illegal when the rules say to look at their weapons and determine what kind of PW they have? The rules don't say 'If your model doesn't have the same kind of weapon as the stock model, you need to switch it back'.

Hmm, well, examining this image I see a few major issues:

#1. Some units don't have 2 weapons, failure of WYSIWG.

#2. Some units have options here that are not even listed in the new power weapons: Like your fist weapon I see on one guys hand.

#3. I think nobody cared about your wyches before either, since we're discussing the swaps on the official GW model and I said several times to you, you were free to arm them any way you like as long as they have the proper weapons you claim. If you WANTED my permission or blessing, you have it. ^.^

**Joe Mama**

IdentifyZero wrote:Stating again though, since some of the thicker headed people keep ignoring me; I'm against you modelling one of each weapon on your Death Cult Assassin.

Yes, we recognize you are making your own house rule. And?

The rules say otherwise.

**Jidmah**

nolzur wrote:
Jidmah wrote:I wonder how you'd all react if I stack 6 Turrets on top of each other on my battlewagon. Or mounti a vindicator cannon on a turret. Or model my orks to hold huge metal sheets to block LoS.

That's about as much creative modeling as providing models with no options for axes whatsoever with such weapons.

You can put as many large items on your orks as you want. As it is clearly stated in the rulebook that any terrain or other features attached to a model cannot provide cover or block LoS to it, I'll still shoot your orks just as much as if they didn't have it, and your models will look ridiculous.

I'm not arguing that, you can shoot the orks holding the metal sheets. You can't shoot anyone behind them, because you don't see anything but metal sheets.

**IdentifyZero**

insaniak wrote:
IdentifyZero wrote:Your tactical sergeant example doesn't fit in with the DCA having a sword/axe. He is a unique upgrade unit that can pay for any wargear options listed in his entry and can in theory, have avariety of combinations of weapons without issue.

And this, I think, is where you're running into conflict with this idea.

Because under the current rules, the DCA is also a unit that can have a variety of weapons according to the rules. So essentially what your argument is coming down to is the idea that plastic models can legally have whatever weapons are allowed by their unit entry, while FInecast or metal models can only legally have the weapons they come with.

Which just isn't going to fly with most players.

I suspect a large part of the cause for the division of opinion here is that some people think that all three power weapons are intended to be equal (as their rules all have their own pros and cons) and some feel that axes and mauls are inherently better and should be an extra rather than a regular option.

Since GW didn't add a points cost for changing your generic power weapon to an axe or a maul, it seems that GW themselves are going with the first option. And as such, which you choose to put on your model is entirely up to you.

I am not denying them the chance to swap their SWORDS for AXES. I am saying swapping 1 sword for an axe and having a sword and an axe is the issue.

**A Town Called Malus**

Polonius wrote:OK, congratulations. People model for advantage all the time. It's called "putting the weapons you want on a model."

I mean, every time I build a model, it's for an advantage. I didn't convert 20 praetorians to carry plasma guns because I think plasma guns look neat.

there are two ways to view this. One is clearly to look at the "official" model, make a call about what it's armed with, and require all units of that type use that power weapon. The other is to view any vague power weapon as essentially unlocking the "this model may exchange any power weapon for a power sword, power ax, or power maul."

I guess I modelled for advantage by putting twin-linked Missile Pods on my Crisis Suits. After all, the set only came with one and none of the pictures on the GW website show the suit armed with twin-linked weaponry.

**IdentifyZero**

Joe Mama wrote:
IdentifyZero wrote:Stating again though, since some of the thicker headed people keep ignoring me; I'm against you modelling one of each weapon on your Death Cult Assassin.

Yes, we recognize you are making your own house rule. And?

The rules say otherwise.

Claiming someone is using a house rule because you cannot logically or mentally keep up with them is not a valid retort.

**A Town Called Malus**

IdentifyZero wrote:
insaniak wrote:
IdentifyZero wrote:Your tactical sergeant example doesn't fit in with the DCA having a sword/axe. He is a unique upgrade unit that can pay for any wargear options listed in his entry and can in theory, have avariety of combinations of weapons without issue.

And this, I think, is where you're running into conflict with this idea.

Because under the current rules, the DCA is also a unit that can have a variety of weapons according to the rules. So essentially what your argument is coming down to is the idea that plastic models can legally have whatever weapons are allowed by their unit entry, while FInecast or metal models can only legally have the weapons they come with.

Which just isn't going to fly with most players.

I suspect a large part of the cause for the division of opinion here is that some people think that all three power weapons are intended to be equal (as their rules all have their own pros and cons) and some feel that axes and mauls are inherently better and should be an extra rather than a regular option.

Since GW didn't add a points cost for changing your generic power weapon to an axe or a maul, it seems that GW themselves are going with the first option. And as such, which you choose to put on your model is entirely up to you.

I am not denying them the chance to swap their SWORDS for AXES. I am saying swapping 1 sword for an axe and having a sword and an axe is the issue.

I asked you before but WHY? There is nothing in the RULES which says that this is not possible.

**Polonius**

Jidmah wrote:[Conversions from citadel miniatures are not citadel miniatures. The are pretre models based on citadel miniatures.
Selling your conversions as citadel miniatures would be fraud.

I can't speak for jurisdictions outside of Ohio (the only state in which I"m licensed), but you'd be hard pressed find case law to support that argument.

**Joe Mama**

IdentifyZero wrote:I am not denying them the chance to swap their SWORDS for AXES. I am saying swapping 1 sword for an axe and having a sword and an axe is the issue.

An issue for you personally. Please tell us how this relates in any way at all to the 6th edition rules, which permit one sword and one axe.

**pretre**

Jidmah wrote:
That's the first sentence of the rules and it doesn't exclude conversions from citadel miniatures.

Conversions from citadel miniatures are not citadel miniatures. The are pretre models based on citadel miniatures.
Selling your conversions as citadel miniatures would be fraud.

Wait, so you're saying it isn't legal to use conversions in 40k anymore?

**kirsanth**

Jidmah wrote:The GK codex does not allow force axes.

It does now.

**Joe Mama**

kirsanth wrote:
Jidmah wrote:The GK codex does not allow force axes.
It does now.

Power axes. Not nemesis force axes.

**pretre**

IdentifyZero wrote:Hmm, well, examining this image I see a few major issues:

#1. Some units don't have 2 weapons, failure of WYSIWG.

#2. Some units have options here that are not even listed in the new power weapons: Like your fist weapon I see on one guys hand.

Every model has two weapons. The rulebook covers weapons that don't fit into the normal batch as counting as swords.

**kirsanth**

Jidmah wrote:Stop spamming nonsense maybe, and find some rules instead?

The rule was posted. Look at the model. You are looking at a web page.

**Jidmah**

Oh, I bet if you'd start selling Death-Cults with Axes as official Citadel models, GW would support that argument rather quickly.

**kirsanth**

Joe Mama wrote:
kirsanth wrote:
Jidmah wrote:The GK codex does not allow force axes.
It does now.

Power axes. Not nemesis force axes.

This is more correct.

IIRC though, there are force weapons that can be power weapons that can be an ax now.
I did not really look that up though, since the rules being ignored are in the main book.

**Jidmah**

kirsanth wrote:
Jidmah wrote:Stop spamming nonsense maybe, and find some rules instead?
The rule was posted. Look at the model. You are looking at a web page.

So I'm allowed to use stompas as warbosses now?

I mean, obviously I'm allowed to switch models however I want, right?

It's even sold by GW!

**A Town Called Malus**

IdentifyZero wrote:

Hmm, well, examining this image I see a few major issues:

#1. Some units don't have 2 weapons, failure of WYSIWG.

#2. Some units have options here that are not even listed in the new power weapons: Like your fist weapon I see on one guys hand.

#3. I think nobody cared about your wyches before either, since we're discussing the swaps on the official GW model and I said several times to you, you were free to arm them any way you like as long as they have the proper weapons you claim. If you WANTED my permission or blessing, you have it. ^.^

As someone pointed out earlier, one of the official GW models for a DCA doesn't have two weapons and so fails WYSIWYG.

**kirsanth**

Jidmah wrote:Stop spamming nonsense maybe, and find some rules instead?

I love the dichotomy.

Jidmah wrote:So I'm allowed to use stompas as warbosses now?

I mean, obviously I'm allowed to switch models however I want, right?

It's even sold by GW!

But, sure, you even got the "as" of "counts as" right. I would not complain.
I use a converted carnifex for a Tryannofex and another as a Tervigon. Have for years and never had a complaint.

**pretre**

Jidmah wrote:Oh, I bet if you'd start selling Death-Cults with Axes as official Citadel models, GW would support that argument rather quickly.

Stop trying to divert. No one is seriously talking about selling, they're just addresing your earlier point. You said that I couldn't count my converted minis (from citadel stock) as valid for this discussion since the rules says only Citadel miniatures.

jidmah wrote:Please quote the exact rule allowing you to freely choose which weapons you can equip. And please don't quote the one telling you to look at models which are made by citadel. Because "model" is defined in the very first sentence of the rules, excluding anything custom-built.

pretre wrote:
Jidmah wrote:That's the first sentence of the rules and it doesn't exclude conversions from citadel miniatures.

Conversions from citadel miniatures are not citadel miniatures. The are pretre models based on citadel miniatures.
Selling your conversions as citadel miniatures would be fraud.

Wait, so you're saying it isn't legal to use conversions in 40k anymore?