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.

I would say modeling the DCA with 2 of the same power weapon would be perfectly fine (2 axes for example) But having more than one of each weapon would be a no no.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The point that I'm making is that, by default, you play with the basic model. If you want to convert it to obtain an advantage not otherwise given to you - by putting an Axe on something that comes with swords, as a pertinent example - then that is modelling for advantage.

Does that mean that if I buy a box of tactical marines, that I can't have the heavy bolter upgrade that the codex says I can? It's not in the tactical squad box. Does that mean that I can't use tactical marine boxes to model Chaos SM? Does that mean that space wolves can't have meltaguns? There are no meltaguns in a box of space wolves.

No the rules are clear. You look at the miniature to decide what kind of PW your model has. Furthermore, they are my models and I can model them however I want. My codex says power weapon. If I want it to be a power axe, you can get an axe from any box you like and put in on there.

Again straw man

Two, distinctly different rules at play

1) You can model the upgrades you are allowed
2) You look at the model to determine what weapon it has

The rules ARE CLEAR on this. You build the model as supplied by Citadel Miniatures. The DCA does not come with power axes, meaning you have no permission to place power axes on the model

If you disagree, provide actual rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Again straw man

Two, distinctly different rules at play

1) You can model the upgrades you are allowed
2) You look at the model to determine what weapon it has

The rules ARE CLEAR on this. You build the model as supplied by Citadel Miniatures. The DCA does not come with power axes, meaning you have no permission to place power axes on the model

If you disagree, provide actual rules.

Then tell me what kind of Power Weapon a Burna has.

1) Burna's (if they don't fire in the shooting phase) count as having Power Weapons.
2) No Burna has a model that has an attached Power Weapon

By your argument, Burna's can never use Power Weapons since the model was not originally casted as one.

Good Luck getting an Ork Player to agree with you.

pg; 238 "Over the years, as Games Workshop has flourished, the nature of the rniniatures has changed somewhat, but the uncompromising devotion to detail practised by the Citadel Miniatures design team remains unchanged. In the earliest years, Citadel miniatures were cast exclusively in pewter, but as the technology available has evolved, so has the abihry of Games Workshop to produce even more functional and detailed miniatures. Now, most of the models made and sold by Games'Workshop are cast in plastic, enabling hobbyists to easily and effectively build their miniatures, swap componenrs across kits and make conversions with the utmost ease

pg 323; Conversion Showcase

Don't be a git. To say with a straight face that every model that has a legal weapon swap out of it's codex is MFA, and that Riflemen are illegal, DCA with differnet weapons (Even though the rulebook has a specific rule for what to do when you are armed with two different melee weapons), that any model that has a weapon swap is illegal...I just feel bad for you. You have no concept about the spirit of the hobby, the game and I just can't see how you have any fun playing.

"Converting is taking the process of personalising miniatures a little further, perhaps by cutting a weapon away from a model to replace it with a new gun, or chopping off a head to include an alternative." P322

nosferatu1001 wrote:Again straw man

Two, distinctly different rules at play

1) You can model the upgrades you are allowed
2) You look at the model to determine what weapon it has

The rules ARE CLEAR on this. You build the model as supplied by Citadel Miniatures. The DCA does not come with power axes, meaning you have no permission to place power axes on the model

If you disagree, provide actual rules.

And both DCA are not Legal models, as one does not have power weapons, and the other only has 1 power weapon.

So we cant use DCA because their models are illegal.

I feel that modeling them with the weapon of choice is fine. In fact, I'm thinking about modeling them with a maul and a sword so that i can use the ruleset that I want when fighting the appropriate models. For example, when fighting marines I want the Ap3 sword but if Im fighting Nobs then I dont need Ap3, so I'll take the improved strength and Ap4 from the maul. Cheesy as it is, I think it is also appropriate fluff-wise as given the option you wouldnt bring high ap weapons to fight low armor targets.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Again straw man

Two, distinctly different rules at play

1) You can model the upgrades you are allowed
2) You look at the model to determine what weapon it has

The rules ARE CLEAR on this. You build the model as supplied by Citadel Miniatures. The DCA does not come with power axes, meaning you have no permission to place power axes on the model

If you disagree, provide actual rules.

How do you model a Gauntlet of Fire or a Voidblade for Necrons when they don't exist?
How do you claim a Libby in power armor with a power sword has a Psychic when it clearly does not?
How many people actually put Melta Bombs on their models but claimed the upgrade?

As for rules, the codexes themselves say you can "give/take" an upgrade or "replace" a weaponm with.... Does that not clearly imply you can add/subtract to your model? I mean how else can a model take an upgrade to battle unless you convert the model to include it?

DJ - a unique one. You did read the rule about unique power weapons, yes? S: User, AP3.

Again: the rules are you look at the model to determine what type of unspecified power weapon it has. If that model comes with Power Swords find PERMISSION to alter that model

Those pages you quoted (and pretre) - you do realise they come from "the hobby", and not "the rules", yes? The Rules are a clue as to what section contains the rules of the game.

DR - yep, correct. Well, one has a sword, which can certainly be a power sword (internal, hilt PSU) so you know which weapon it is armed with.

The point is: when converting models, realise that you live and die by the rule of cool. Thats it.

Modelling an Axe on a model that comes with a power sword so you can gain an advantage? Gues what - thats MFA.

We are also told that we can decorate, and alter our weapons how we wish, so long as it matches our profile. That is modelers peroggative and GW has given us the ability to make decisions about our equipment by modeling it how we desire. GW is actually letting us make decisions based on looks now, and we have not been told that we cannot change the looks.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Those pages you quoted (and pretre) - you do realise they come from "the hobby", and not "the rules", yes? The Rules are a clue as to what section contains the rules of the game.

Good call! So since painting and assembly are also not in the rules we should be playing with unassembled, unpainted models (in some cases still on sprue) because we have not been given permission in the rules to assemble them or cut them from the sprue?

Wow. If the only way to win is for you to a take narrow rules interpretation in order to restrict the way that your opponent plays with his PLASTIC TOY SOILDERS, I think you've missed the point.

The DCA box doesn't even come with enough power weapons to build the model to a WYSIWYG standard. But you're claiming that kit bashing it to make it WYSIWYG is MFA? Tell me, what 'advantage' does one type of power weapon have over another?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Those pages you quoted (and pretre) - you do realise they come from "the hobby", and not "the rules", yes? The Rules are a clue as to what section contains the rules of the game.

Good call! So since painting and assembly are also not in the rules we should be playing with unassembled, unpainted models (in some cases still on sprue) because we have not been given permission in the rules to assemble them or cut them from the sprue?

Exactly. Permissive rule set and all that.

I can just see it now. "Hey the rules don't give you permission to model your space marine captain with his power sword hanging over the base! You have to make him point it straight in the air or else it's not a legal model! You're MFA because I can't get my models in BTB with him!"

Come on.

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:I feel that modeling them with the weapon of choice is fine. In fact, I'm thinking about modeling them with a maul and a sword so that i can use the ruleset that I want when fighting the appropriate models. For example, when fighting marines I want the Ap3 sword but if Im fighting Nobs then I dont need Ap3, so I'll take the improved strength and Ap4 from the maul. Cheesy as it is, I think it is also appropriate fluff-wise as given the option you wouldnt bring high ap weapons to fight low armor targets.

Overmodeling is not supported by the rules... If the model can have 1 power weapon, giving him two is confusing to opponents and can inspire cheating, especially in tourneys where game 1 and 2 you have swords and game 3 you have an axe which is also not supported in the rules to dynamically switch.

Grugknuckle wrote:Wow. If the only way to win is for you to a take narrow rules interpretation in order to restrict the way that your opponent plays with his PLASTIC TOY SOILDERS, I think you've missed the point.

Wow, if you cant even tell the difference between a forum dedicated to discussing rules, and an actual game in progress, I think you have missed the point.

Grugknuckle wrote:The DCA box doesn't even come with enough power weapons to build the model to a WYSIWYG standard. But you're claiming that kit bashing it to make it WYSIWYG is MFA? Tell me, what 'advantage' does one type of power weapon have over another?

Apparently you havent spotted that they can take one of each. Tell me, do you think being able to cut rhoguh TEQ and MEQ armour offers benefits over the allowed ability to only cut through MEQ?

And, for the final time - can people stop creating strawman arguments? It gets really, really tiresome to argue against.. I didnt say you couldnt model them so they are correct as per the supplied model - which is one fitted with swords/ What you cannot do is claim that an Axe is wysiwyg, because the supplied model never comes with an axe.

It isnt so difficult an argument, really

nkelsch wrote:

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:I feel that modeling them with the weapon of choice is fine. In fact, I'm thinking about modeling them with a maul and a sword so that i can use the ruleset that I want when fighting the appropriate models. For example, when fighting marines I want the Ap3 sword but if Im fighting Nobs then I dont need Ap3, so I'll take the improved strength and Ap4 from the maul. Cheesy as it is, I think it is also appropriate fluff-wise as given the option you wouldnt bring high ap weapons to fight low armor targets.

Overmodeling is not supported by the rules... If the model can have 1 power weapon, giving him two is confusing to opponents and can inspire cheating, especially in tourneys where game 1 and 2 you have swords and game 3 you have an axe which is also not supported in the rules to dynamically switch.

Yeah, overmodelling is not cool. Vindicare-obsession, this is very different from modelling the right number of weapons but using ones that are different from the original model.

nosferatu1001 wrote:a unique one. You did read the rule about unique power weapons, yes? S: User, AP3.

They can choose to either shoot as a flamer, or be used in close combat as a power weapon. It is not unique, because it does not have its own unique close combat rules. It has no additional rules and characteristics presented in its entry. So my question stands; do you consider Burnas then to never be armed with a power weapon?

nosferatu1001 wrote:when converting models, realise that you live and die by the rule of cool. Thats it. Modelling an Axe on a model that comes with a power sword so you can gain an advantage? Gues what - thats MFA.

So then, what about say taking an IG guardsman and creating your own model and giving it a sword and axe? It's not a Citadel DCA model, but it is still a Citadel Miniature. which would make it legal under your previous statements. We then look to The Rule of Cool, as taken from various signatures states;

RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."

GW defines WYSIWYG: An important principle of our events is "what you see is what you get" or WYSIWYG (pronounced "wizzywig") for short. All this means is unless you are using the 'counts as' rule (see below), then miniatures are assumed to have their equipment actually shown on the model. It would be grossly unfair to show the model being equipped with one thing, but claiming it to be armed with another; wars have been started for less.

GW defines COUNTS AS: The 'Counts As' rule allows you to apply the rules for existing units to older or scratch built models that do not have rules of their own. This is to allow you to make full use of your collection or the army choices within our rule books; it's not an excuse to change your army as a way of fine tuning your force.

So I take a IG Guardsman. I scratch build him to "counts as" a DCA with a power sword and power axe as then defined under WYSIWYG. What then?

@Nos: Where is the permission in the rules to cut your model off the sprue, assemble it or paint it?

nkelsch wrote:

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:I feel that modeling them with the weapon of choice is fine. In fact, I'm thinking about modeling them with a maul and a sword so that i can use the ruleset that I want when fighting the appropriate models. For example, when fighting marines I want the Ap3 sword but if Im fighting Nobs then I dont need Ap3, so I'll take the improved strength and Ap4 from the maul. Cheesy as it is, I think it is also appropriate fluff-wise as given the option you wouldnt bring high ap weapons to fight low armor targets.

Overmodeling is not supported by the rules... If the model can have 1 power weapon, giving him two is confusing to opponents and can inspire cheating, especially in tourneys where game 1 and 2 you have swords and game 3 you have an axe which is also not supported in the rules to dynamically switch.

DCA's are given 2 pw's so its not over-modeling.
I was suggesting, since they come with 2 pw's and oyu can only use one ruleset each rounds of combet, you model them with a pw for "heavy" infantry, and "light" infantry and use the appropriate weapon in the appropriate combat. There is nothing preventing 2 different types of pw's on a model with 2 pw's

If I am mistaken please tell me. I honestly thought it was legit.

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:DCA's are given 2 pw's so its not over-modeling.
I was suggesting, since they come with 2 pw's and oyu can only use one ruleset each rounds of combet, you model them with a pw for "heavy" infantry, and "light" infantry and use the appropriate weapon in the appropriate combat. There is nothing preventing 2 different types of pw's on a model with 2 pw's

Ahh, I misunderstood who you were talking about. For DCA, that is the crux of the question. Some of us believe this is okay to do. Some do not. I'm all for it.

As am I. The power weapon rules seem balanced enough that you cant claim MFA as it is only your preference. Some armies dont have the means to deal with AV 2+ and the new PW rules allow them to compensate. It's meant to balance and I think they did a pretty good job.

Nos is correct on the WYSIWYG matter. If your model is not WYSIWYG, then you cannot use it without consent from your opponent(s).

However, modeling an Axe on a model that can take Axes, but is not supplied with them is not modeling for advantage. No more so than using a Plasma Cannon on a tactical marine.

djdarknoise wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:a unique one. You did read the rule about unique power weapons, yes? S: User, AP3.

They can choose to either shoot as a flamer, or be used in close combat as a power weapon. It is not unique, because it does not have its own unique close combat rules. It has no additional rules and characteristics presented in its entry. So my question stands; do you consider Burnas then to never be armed with a power weapon?

Bzzzt, wrong. It is unique. Or dont you think that being a power weapon or not existing as a CCW isnt unique? I suggest you look to the rules threads on this in case you are still in doubt

It is S: User, AP3, because it has unique rules. This makes your question moot.

djdarknoise wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:when converting models, realise that you live and die by the rule of cool. Thats it. Modelling an Axe on a model that comes with a power sword so you can gain an advantage? Gues what - thats MFA.

So then, what about say taking an IG guardsman and creating your own model and giving it a sword and axe? It's not a Citadel DCA model, but it is still a Citadel Miniature. which would make it legal under your previous statements.

It isnt a Citadel Miniature for a DCA. It is a guard model. You are aware of "Counts as", yes? This is "Counts As", at best. Which isnt included in the rules. So, again, please provide some rules allowing you to use a non DCA model as a DCA.

djdarknoise wrote: We then look to The Rule of Cool, as taken from various signatures states;
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."

"Less" doesnt mean "none". This still isnt rules. Can you provide some?

djdarknoise wrote:GW defines WYSIWYG: An important principle of our events is "what you see is what you get" or WYSIWYG (pronounced "wizzywig") for short. All this means is unless you are using the 'counts as' rule (see below), then miniatures are assumed to have their equipment actually shown on the model. It would be grossly unfair to show the model being equipped with one thing, but claiming it to be armed with another; wars have been started for less.

GW defines COUNTS AS: The 'Counts As' rule allows you to apply the rules for existing units to older or scratch built models that do not have rules of their own. This is to allow you to make full use of your collection or the army choices within our rule books; it's not an excuse to change your army as a way of fine tuning your force.

So I take a IG Guardsman. I scratch build him to "counts as" a DCA with a power sword and power axe as then defined under WYSIWYG. What then?

Counts as isnt a rule. Can you provide some rules allowing you to use a guardsman with a sword and axe as a DCA? Page and paragraph from the rulebook

Hint: tournament rules arent valid here.

and modeling a power weapon (as classified in the book) as one of the power weapons in the book is WYSIWYG as well. The book tells you look at the model. It does not say, look at the original, unchanged model. I gave a number of models with PW's scythes just because I thought they looked awsome. Now they have axes b/c of the new rules. Was i MFA? no, I was desiging a model as I seemed fit.

Pretre - because you play with models, not sprues. Page 2. This necesitates building the model as per the directions. Less facetiousness would be good.

Vindicare - again, the model, stock, has power SWORDS. Changing from SWORD + SWORD to SWORD + AXE means you can now cut through both TEQ and MEQ armour, when the model, stock, cannot do so.

That is modelling to gain an advantage

And yes, when they say look atht emodel, they mean "look at the Citadel Model we told you to use, back on page 2." That is implicit in how the rules are designed. So, please - find permission, in the section called "Rules" to convert your model however you see fit.

How about modelling the SR so the TLAC is on the underside? That is "designing your model how you see fit", yes? What about modelling the same TLAC with 18" long barrels. so it can shoot a hell of a lot furhter?

Whoopie - no, the model cannot take an axe. The rule is that you see what the weapon is by looking at the model. So, if the model has prts that allow you to build an axe, or sword, or maul - then you are good to go. This model doesnt. This model lets you put swords on. So, when looking at the model - you can only have a pair of swords.

GW has made specific statements on when power weapons are specifically treated as a certain type. Specifically, I am referring to hellblades stated as power swords. This statement overides the fact that previous models (released from GW) were modelled with axes. In other cases, I am told to look at the model and infer what type of power weapon it is and adjust the stat line accordingly. The only "requirement" for models is that they be WYSISYG and made by Citadel. I have never seen a requirement that says "You may ONLY use the specified model as released by GW." So, if I wish to put a different type of power weapon on this model, I am free to do so without MFA.

Chaos terminators come with several different types of weapons to choose from (axes, mauls, and swords). These are all power weapons. I am free to choose what type of power weapon I wish to model it. Just because an old metal model is fixed with one type of weapon does not mean I cannot mix and match power weapon types.

With respect to modelling with an axe and a sword, is this any different than Marneus Calgar and his plethora of weapons (2x power fists + a power sword). He states at the beginning of combat what weapons he is using that round. He then swings at the appropriate initiative and strength. Having an axe and a sword, you would need to declare which one you are using that turn. If you go with the sword, you are swinging at I, AP3 with one bonus attack for having a 2nd close combat weapon. The axe would be at AP 2, I1, same thing. You would NOT get separate swings in the same turn with both weapons. There is precedence that has been set. I do not see this a MFA. I see this is building your model to accomodate the most useful number of situations.

Nos, a model with a "Power Weapon" as a wargear option, according to the rules for Power Weapons can take one of several choices. The fact the model bought does not come with the parts to build an Axe has no bearing so long as it WYSIWYG. I.e. you chop the sword off and glue an appropriate looking Power Axe in its place.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Pretre - because you play with models, not sprues. Page 2. This necesitates building the model as per the directions. Less facetiousness would be good.

Okay, good then. Where is the permission to paint your models?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WhoopieMonster wrote:Nos is correct on the WYSIWYG matter. If your model is not WYSIWYG, then you cannot use it without consent from your opponent(s).

Rules reference, please?

Grugknuckle wrote:Wow. If the only way to win is for you to a take narrow rules interpretation in order to restrict the way that your opponent plays with his PLASTIC TOY SOILDERS, I think you've missed the point.

Who said anything about restricting an opponent. I believe that the sportsmanlike approach to questions like these is to take the more conservative approach until given explicit go-ahead by GW.

My opponents don't use DCA. I do. And I don't feel comfortable sticking a mix of various weapons in the unit so that I've got the optimal tools for whatever situation, based solely on how I converted the models. I don't think it's fair to my opponents that my DCA can run swords versus their marines, and axes versus their terminators, for no extra point cost or drawback. I think this is modelling for an advantage I didn't pay for, and that doing so would make me TFG.

I don't believe that the rules, as they're currently written, give me the right to take this advantage over my opponents. Could I do it? Sure, I have clippers and glue. Would my opponents complain? Probably not - as you point out, we're playing toy soldiers. But, would I feel good in doing so? No. Do I need to win at toy soldiers so desperately that I redesign my models in a way that they weren't intended, just to take advantage of a quirk in a new ruleset? No. I don't.

Perhaps if people stopped worrying about what their opponents were doing, and thought instead about their own behaviour, we'd see different answers to some of these polls.

Pretre - There isnt any. Shucks, guess that means we all need to ask permission now. Oh wait, rulepacks usually dictate that you have to have painted models, so thats covered.....

Can you please provide a rule permitting you to convert models? Can you please provide a rule permitting you to change your model so it gains an advantage?

Whoopie - you are told to look at the Citadel Miniature to determine what the weapon is classified as, you are NOT given permission to model the minmiature so it has the weapon you want.


There is a rather glaring difference everyone is ignoring.

Please provide a RULES ALLOWANCE to alter that Citadel Miniature to be a non-citadel miniature by altering its appearance. If you cannot do so, please confirm that here. Continuing to argue that this is allowed, when you have yet to provide rules to the affirmative, breaks the tenets of this forum.

@Nos: Just as there is no rule that allows painting or assembly, there is no rule that allows altering. Both the rule you quoted for assembly and the idea that you can change weapons are assumptions based on the rules.

Neither side has rules in their favor on conversion because there aren't any either way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is no rule that says you can't modify a Citadel model and there is no rule that says you can. There is the hobby section which clearly shows assembly, painting and conversion, but you're not accepting that.