Crusaders with Power Axes ( converting model question )

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.

**pretre**

nkelsch wrote:
insaniak wrote:
From purely a rules perspective, there is absolutely no difference between giving a Crusader a power axe and giving a Tactical Marine a multi melta.

Totally disagree. We can take a multi-melta due to explicit permission in the wargear option of the codex.

The CHOICE of a power weapon is IMPLIED by a unmoderated social convention and is not explicit int he rulebook. GW could have made it explicit by saying "any model with a power weapon may be equipped with any of the 4 following types" but they didn't say that. They said look at the model and we are using unwritten social convention that we are allowed to modify the models the same way as if it was a wargear option...

The problem is, this has been removed for weapon options whenever the weapon or model has a specific look or description. Necrons may not take a Hyperface maul, Marines may not take a Crozaruius axe. GW has decided for some options to actually lock down the weapon to what the 'model looks like' not 'model the weapon however you wish.'

There have been some that fell through the cracks like Runic axes and such but what is more likley? that a second round of FAQs will begin to lock down generic powerweapons into specific builds or that it will be every powerweapon is any powerweapon? We have seen how some units have been locked down, we will see how Chaos get's locked down if they remove the choice of POWER WEAPONS from the codex and explicitly grant specific weapon types. We also may see harlequins being locked into swords or something too.

Saying there is *NO DIFFERENCE* is not true... there very much is a difference because The rules say you may take a multimelta, the rules don't say you can't modify your model to have a power axe... So it is implied permission by a gaping hole which may be removed for some units at any time.

I agree with the bulk of your argument, just not your conclusion, nkelsch. There is definitely a difference, but I believe that you are still allowed to change them. You give the examples where GW wished to lock it down and they clearly did not do that with Crusaders or DCA (of course, they missed SW Crozius as well, but...).

**nkelsch**

pretre wrote:
nkelsch wrote:
insaniak wrote:
From purely a rules perspective, there is absolutely no difference between giving a Crusader a power axe and giving a Tactical Marine a multi melta.

Totally disagree. We can take a multi-melta due to explicit permission in the wargear option of the codex.

The CHOICE of a power weapon is IMPLIED by a unmoderated social convention and is not explicit int he rulebook. GW could have made it explicit by saying "any model with a power weapon may be equipped with any of the 4 following types" but they didn't say that. They said look at the model and we are using unwritten social convention that we are allowed to modify the models the same way as if it was a wargear option...

The problem is, this has been removed for weapon options whenever the weapon or model has a specific look or description. Necrons may not take a Hyperface maul, Marines may not take a Crozaruius axe. GW has decided for some options to actually lock down the weapon to what the 'model looks like' not 'model the weapon however you wish.'

There have been some that fell through the cracks like Runic axes and such but what is more likley? that a second round of FAQs will begin to lock down generic powerweapons into specific builds or that it will be every powerweapon is any powerweapon? We have seen how some units have been locked down, we will see how Chaos get's locked down if they remove the choice of POWER WEAPONS from the codex and explicitly grant specific weapon types. We also may see harlequins being locked into swords or something too.

Saying there is *NO DIFFERENCE* is not true... there very much is a difference because The rules say you may take a multimelta, the rules don't say you can't modify your model to have a power axe... So it is implied permission by a gaping hole which may be removed for some units at any time.

I agree with the bulk of your argument, just not your conclusion, nkelsch. There is definitely a difference, but I believe that you are still allowed to change them. You give the examples where GW wished to lock it down and they clearly did not do that with Crusaders or DCA (of course, they missed SW Crozius as well, but...).

I agree you can change them for now... but I also believe many units are going to be further restricted based upon GW appearance. And we do not have explicit permission to change them, just implied that it doesn't say we can't change them. I feel more static the figure, the better chance they will be restricted. One-piece metal/finecast VS multipart plastic.

I wouldn't advise changing *ANYTHING* until after the chaos codex and the next round of needed FAQs. We all know Runic Axes and SW crozarious is probably in for a FAQ as well as a few other units. We may see Chaos end up with different point values, or some models being restricted to specific versions.

I play orks so I have nothing to modify, but I wouldn't recommend breaking arms off half your models just yet. GW leaving a big hole is not the same as an intentional change. More often than once has the GW rule designers said "dear god, you guys are some cheaty bastards, it is clear what we meant but now we need to FAQ it."

**Redemption**

nkelsch wrote:There have been some that fell through the cracks like Runic axes and such but what is more likley? that a second round of FAQs will begin to lock down generic powerweapons into specific builds or that it will be every powerweapon is any powerweapon? We have seen how some units have been locked down, we will see how Chaos get's locked down if they remove the choice of POWER WEAPONS from the codex and explicitly grant specific weapon types. We also may see harlequins being locked into swords or something too.

The current Grey Knights codex already does that. While models like a Techmarine, Crusader or Deathcult Assassins either have or can upgrade to a 'power weapon', the various Inquisitors or Warrior Acolytes can only upgrade to a power sword.

And then there's the whole ordeal of various FAQs changing all entries of 'power sword' to 'power weapon', as has been noted. I somehow doubt they would change it only for it to work exactly the same because there's currently only a model with a power sword out.

Do you also think that when a Librarian equips Terminator armour, he cannot equip a Force Sword or Force Axe any more, as there's currently only a Terminator Librarian model with a Force Stave and the only Force Axe and Force Sword wielding Librarians are in Power Armour?

**nkelsch**

Redemption wrote:
nkelsch wrote:There have been some that fell through the cracks like Runic axes and such but what is more likley? that a second round of FAQs will begin to lock down generic powerweapons into specific builds or that it will be every powerweapon is any powerweapon? We have seen how some units have been locked down, we will see how Chaos get's locked down if they remove the choice of POWER WEAPONS from the codex and explicitly grant specific weapon types. We also may see harlequins being locked into swords or something too.

The current Grey Knights codex already does that. While models like a Techmarine, Crusader or Deathcult Assassins either have or can upgrade to a 'power weapon', the various Inquisitors or Warrior Acolytes can only upgrade to a power sword.

And then there's the whole ordeal of various FAQs changing all entries of 'power sword' to 'power weapon', as has been noted. I somehow doubt they would change it only for it to work exactly the same because there's currently only a model with a power sword out.

Do you also think that when a Librarian equips Terminator armour, he cannot equip a Force Sword or Force Axe any more, as there's currently only a Terminator Librarian model with a Force Stave and the only Force Axe and Force Sword wielding Librarians are in Power Armour?

Except the first round of FAQs was hastily done and lots of things were missed... and a catch all 'swords are weapons' is not the same as an explicit thought out 'this unit may have these weapons based upon appearance' like what happened to Necrons and Hyperphase swords.

The issue is it is not explicit, it is implied based upon a lack of explicit permission to buy a specific weapon iof your choice and relies on the concept you may model as your choice. GW has already started round two of locking down power weapons and we will see how the chaos codex handles it. I wouldn't recommend mutilating your models yet until we have a more consistent and well-implemented FAQ because we all can agree the current FAQ released is tenuous at best and has a lot of holes in it.

**insaniak**

nkelsch wrote:Except the first round of FAQs was hastily done and lots of things were missed... and a catch all 'swords are weapons' is not the same as an explicit thought out 'this unit may have these weapons based upon appearance' like what happened to Necrons and Hyperphase swords.

Somehow, I suspect that the decision to rule that Hyperphase swords are swords was not based entirely on their appearance...

The issue is it is not explicit, it is implied based upon a lack of explicit permission to buy a specific weapon iof your choice and relies on the concept you may model as your choice.

A concept that all wargear choices in every codex rely upon.

**nolzur**

I am really not understanding how this is an issue. The rules in the book refer to when you are playing the game.
How many of us are actually modelling our guys during the game?
If I show up with a guy holding an axe, and the rule says to look at the model to see what he is equipped with, you look at him, and see he has an axe, bam, he has an axe.
There is nothing in the rulebook saying "when you buy a model, look at the sprues, and this forever determines exactly what wargear he has."

**4oursword**

If Power Weapons as a whole are still such a source of confusion, what of Null Rods? They are power weapons with additional special rules, so they use the basic AP3 profile. Would a sword be acceptable? Same rules, and I print army roster sheets for my opponents so as to minimize the possibility of confusion.

Also, Insaniak: Has your Avatar always been animated?

**pretre**

4oursword wrote:If Power Weapons as a whole are still such a source of confusion, what of Null Rods? They are power weapons with additional special rules, so they use the basic AP3 profile. Would a sword be acceptable? Same rules, and I print army roster sheets for my opponents so as to minimize the possibility of confusion.

Same profile basically. I would try to make sure it looks different from any other swords in your army though.

**liturgies of blood**

pretre wrote:
4oursword wrote:If Power Weapons as a whole are still such a source of confusion, what of Null Rods? They are power weapons with additional special rules, so they use the basic AP3 profile. Would a sword be acceptable? Same rules, and I print army roster sheets for my opponents so as to minimize the possibility of confusion.

Same profile basically. I would try to make sure it looks different from any other swords in your army though.

Isn't there a staff on the sprue that is called a null rod in the codex's pages?

**pretre**

Pretty sure Null Rod is a non-modeled item at this point.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
By that I mean that it doesn't currently have a model that shows one. Not that you don't have to model it.

**HawaiiMatt**

insaniak wrote:
I agree with the bulk of your argument, just not your conclusion, nkelsch. There is definitely a difference, but I believe that you are still allowed to change them. You give the examples where GW wished to lock it down and they clearly did not do that with Crusaders or DCA (of course, they missed SW Crozius as well, but...).

I don't think it was an accident with SW. They have a model on the mark with an axe.

Saying that you cannot change a model with a power sword to a power axe, causes some problems.
What happens if I have an OOP model with a power axe, but the current lease only has power swords? So I get power axes because I've been playing a long time?

IMO, if the army list says power weapon, you can convert to axe/mace/lance/sword freely.

-Matt

**pretre**

Insaniak didn't say that, I did.

**insaniak**

4oursword wrote:If Power Weapons as a whole are still such a source of confusion, what of Null Rods? They are power weapons with additional special rules, so they use the basic AP3 profile. Would a sword be acceptable? Same rules, and I print army roster sheets for my opponents so as to minimize the possibility of confusion.

It shouldn't really matter what sort of weapon you use for Unusual power- or force- weapons, so long as they can be told apart from any other power- or force- weapons in your army.

Also, Insaniak: Has your Avatar always been animated?

For around 10 years now, yes

**pretre**

Oh, so it is mostly a recent development.

**Shandara**

Newer than rumors about plastic Sisters eh?

**pretre**

Nope, those date back to at least 12-15 years ago.

**Boss GreenNutz**

Shandara wrote:Newer than rumors about plastic Sisters eh?

I shudder whenever I see that. I have over 100 Sisters and cry when I see they may get replaced. Not that I don't want updated models I just know how much I spent buying metals even if I can still use them. Unless I'm playing some of the folks here since they'll be different models than what GW currently produces.

**Tyr Grimtooth**

Testify wrote:Except the rules for tactical squads state that they're allowed to take a Missile Launcher. The rules do NOT say you're free to model power weapons as you see fit.

I'm not defending the rule, simply saying as it is - RAW you have to use the weapon it comes with, you're not given permission to use anything else.

It isn't an absolute statement though Testify that you look to what is on the model to determine the type of weapon and the rules.

For example, if I want my wolf lord to have a power axe, I need to specifically model a power axe on a wolf lord model. I didn't look to the model to determine what type of weapon and rules, I modeled a weapon type on the model and thus created a set of rules for that model.

So unless you want to go down the road that modeling wargear on a model is not supported by the rules, then you need to accept that looking to the model to determine type and rules of a weapon is not an absolute statement that is only a one way street.

**Testify**

Strict RAW arguments don't interest me , more often than not they lead to absurdity (though it is worth pointing out that the rules do NOT state that you can model the power weapon however you like, so it is at best a "light" RAW argument). The fact is that in a lot of cases, especially units that are made up of models exclusively armed with power weapons, deciding what type they are can add a lot of power to a unit that is not costed in.
If it was simply about space marine captains, or imperial guard commanders, I don't think anyone would care. But when your ork boys get charged by power-maul weilding death company, or your deathwing get assaulted by axe-weilding banshees, that just stinks of cheese.

**Tyr Grimtooth**

Testify wrote:Strict RAW arguments don't interest me , more often than not they lead to absurdity (though it is worth pointing out that the rules do NOT state that you can model the power weapon however you like, so it is at best a "light" RAW argument). The fact is that in a lot of cases, especially units that are made up of models exclusively armed with power weapons, deciding what type they are can add a lot of power to a unit that is not costed in.
If it was simply about space marine captains, or imperial guard commanders, I don't think anyone would care. But when your ork boys get charged by power-maul weilding death company, or your deathwing get assaulted by axe-weilding banshees, that just stinks of cheese.

It is costed in as there is no premium for choosing one type of power weapon over the other. A power weapon costs the same as a power weapons as a power weapon. The percieved advantages are just that, percieved. Their are advantages and disadvantages linked with each choice and to only shout the loudest for the advantages without mentioning the disadvantages is not being honest.

**Testify**

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Testify wrote:Strict RAW arguments don't interest me , more often than not they lead to absurdity (though it is worth pointing out that the rules do NOT state that you can model the power weapon however you like, so it is at best a "light" RAW argument). The fact is that in a lot of cases, especially units that are made up of models exclusively armed with power weapons, deciding what type they are can add a lot of power to a unit that is not costed in.
If it was simply about space marine captains, or imperial guard commanders, I don't think anyone would care. But when your ork boys get charged by power-maul weilding death company, or your deathwing get assaulted by axe-weilding banshees, that just stinks of cheese.

It is costed in as there is no premium for choosing one type of power weapon over the other. A power weapon costs the same as a power weapons as a power weapon. The percieved advantages are just that, percieved. Their are advantages and disadvantages linked with each choice and to only shout the loudest for the advantages without mentioning the disadvantages is not being honest.

Well, not quite. If everyone in my army is I3, I can assume I'm going to go last most of the time (since we all fight MEQ anyway). Therefore, by modelling a power axe instead of sword, I've just gotten +1 strength for free.
It also allows for extreme tailoring. If you know you're playing against demons (who don't have an armour save), or an army with a universally poor armour save like guard or (with a couple of exceptions) orks, power mauls just gave you +2 strength, also completely free.

**insaniak**

Testify wrote:Well, not quite. If everyone in my army is I3, I can assume I'm going to go last most of the time (since we all fight MEQ anyway). Therefore, by modelling a power axe instead of sword, I've just gotten +1 strength for free.

And?

If I'm playing Orks, I know that I'm going to miss more ranged shots than I hit with. Is it therefore 'cheesey' for me to choose to take weapons that put out more shots, to maximise my odds of hitting something?

It also allows for extreme tailoring. If you know you're playing against demons (who don't have an armour save), or an army with a universally poor armour save like guard or (with a couple of exceptions) orks, power mauls just gave you +2 strength, also completely free.

And if you are playing against poor armour, frag missiles kill more models than krak... also for the same points cost.

**Testify**

insaniak wrote:
Testify wrote:Well, not quite. If everyone in my army is I3, I can assume I'm going to go last most of the time (since we all fight MEQ anyway). Therefore, by modelling a power axe instead of sword, I've just gotten +1 strength for free.

And?

If I'm playing Orks, I know that I'm going to miss more ranged shots than I hit with. Is it therefore 'cheesey' for me to choose to take weapons that put out more shots, to maximise my odds of hitting something?

It also allows for extreme tailoring. If you know you're playing against demons (who don't have an armour save), or an army with a universally poor armour save like guard or (with a couple of exceptions) orks, power mauls just gave you +2 strength, also completely free.

And if you are playing against poor armour, frag missiles kill more models than krak... also for the same points cost.

Both of those instances are included in the points costs of the original models.
What we're talking about here is something going from S3 AP2 (5th edition power weapons) to S4 AP2, for free. Or S4 to S6 against an opponent whose best armour save is 4+.

Do you genuinely not understand the grievance or do you just not care about it? It's important.

**DogOfWar**

Testify wrote:Do you genuinely not understand the grievance or do you just not care about it? It's important.

I really don't understand the grievance. Some people think Vendettas became much better "for free" in 6th edition too. There have been lots of changes and being able to tailor your power weapons is one of them.

Saying that you have no disadvantage with switching S3 AP3 I3 to S4 AP2 I1 isn't very accurate. Against Orks, Necrons and IG, you'll be going first or simultaneously with I3. Otherwise you go last.

Saying "well all play MEQ anyway" so you shouldn't be allowed to have extra Strength on your power weapons is kind of a silly argument imo.

DoW

**insaniak**

Testify wrote:Both of those instances are included in the points costs of the original models.

Exactly. And since a power axe and a power sword are the same points cost... the difference between them is also accounted for in the points cost of the models that can take them.

Do you genuinely not understand the grievance or do you just not care about it? It's important.

I understand it. I think it's misguided.

You're taking the fact that the different weapons all cost the same as proof that you can't choose which to use. I'm taking it as a sign that the positives and negatives of each weapon are intended to balance each other out, and so GW fully intended people to be able to pick and choose.

If that gives certain low-initiative models a slight boost in close combat as a side effect of taking certain weapons... well, those are models that ultimately needed that boost anyway, since the current system has always been heavily skewed against low armour, low intiiative units.

**Anpu42**

All I know is from watching all of these “Discussions” about is it a Power Weapon or not. I am going to LMFAO if it comes out in the new FAQs make the Wolf Priest, Death Cult Assassins and Crusaders can choose any Power Weapon they want.

**nkelsch**

DogOfWar wrote:

Saying "well all play MEQ anyway" so you shouldn't be allowed to have extra Strength on your power weapons is kind of a silly argument imo.

DoW

Well since 'proxies' never work for 'power weapons' due to the rules... it is impossible to switch from an axe to a sword to a maul between games without having totally different models. You can ask to proxy a missile launcher as a melta because those weapon options function via purchasing it on your army list, but the only way the rules for power weapons function is to be physically modeled.

**Testify**

DogOfWar wrote:
Testify wrote:Do you genuinely not understand the grievance or do you just not care about it? It's important.
I really don't understand the grievance. Some people think Vendettas became much better "for free" in 6th edition too. There have been lots of changes and being able to tailor your power weapons is one of them.

Saying that you have no disadvantage with switching S3 AP3 I3 to S4 AP2 I1 isn't very accurate. Against Orks, Necrons and IG, you'll be going first or simultaneously with I3. Otherwise you go last.

Depends entirely on your meta. All I know is that there'd be no reason whatsoever to give anything in the IG codex a power sword or maul. YMMV

insaniak wrote:
Exactly. And since a power axe and a power sword are the same points cost... the difference between them is also accounted for in the points cost of the models that can take them.

Not really. Howling Banshees wound MEQ on 4s now. Death Company can wound deamon princes on 2s.

insaniak wrote:
I understand it. I think it's misguided.

You're taking the fact that the different weapons all cost the same as proof that you can't choose which to use. I'm taking it as a sign that the positives and negatives of each weapon are intended to balance each other out, and so GW fully intended people to be able to pick and choose.

If that gives certain low-initiative models a slight boost in close combat as a side effect of taking certain weapons... well, those are models that ultimately needed that boost anyway, since the current system has always been heavily skewed against low armour, low intiiative units.

DC didn't need a boost. Assassins didn't need a boost. Howling Banshees didn't need a boost (okay, other than the nerf to assaulting from vehicles). I can't think of a single weak unit that's been improved by the power weapon nonsense.
And I really don't think that they're balanced in the slightest. I'm tempted to make a poll asking the community which they'd prefer.

**insaniak**

Testify wrote:DC didn't need a boost. Assassins didn't need a boost. Howling Banshees didn't need a boost

Those are rather odd examples of low initiative, low armour units...

I can't think of a single weak unit that's been improved by the power weapon nonsense.

So then what was your objection, again...? Because that's what you were complaining about just before...

Low-initiaitve units get a slight boost from being able to upgrade to Mauls and Axes with no particular down-side.
DCA get a (probably unintentional) boost from being able to take two different weapons and just always use whichever is best for the given situation.

For other 4+ Initiative units, though, the positives are weighed out against the lower AP or the slower hit.

**HawaiiMatt**

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
Shandara wrote:Newer than rumors about plastic Sisters eh?

I shudder whenever I see that. I have over 100 Sisters and cry when I see they may get replaced. Not that I don't want updated models I just know how much I spent buying metals even if I can still use them. Unless I'm playing some of the folks here since they'll be different models than what GW currently produces.

Yeah, I really hated when GE replaced my $20 metal dreadnought with that new cheap plastic one... oh wait.

-Matt