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.

Since the BA codex and all updates fail to define a specific choice that sanguinor MUST take, there is no precedent to over-rule the brb. Which as you all know states that the weapon in play will use the rules for whatever it's modeled as. a Glaive Encarmine may be either an axe or sword.

While rules are written with model characteristics in mind to some extent, all power weapons are of "equal value" according to the brb. With no actual restriction on what type of glaive is used, as long as the model has the type you want both an axe or sword are Legal and Raw. If something IS allowed in the RULES it can not be MFA, regardless what a retail product has modeled on it.

No, i see that on certain units certain power weapons are optimal. Give me the quote that allows you to build the sanguinor with an axe. All I have seen is the faq which does not mention modelling at all.

Putting a legal option on a unit that allows.for options is fine. The sanguinor is not one of the few special characters with options. In ever other case where you build a.custom model you go by the gw loadout. This is easter egging.

There is no RAW for modelling, conversions, painting or assembly.

Simply accept that it is currently a vagueness in the rules and let it go. If you have a question or think that your interpretation may not be accepted, then discuss it with your TO/Opponent before the game/event.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
No, i see that on certain units certain power weapons are optimal. Give me the quote that allows you to build the sanguinor with an axe. All I have seen is the faq which does not mention modelling at all.

Give us the quote where it says you cant.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Give me the quote that allows you to build the sanguinor with an axe.

Give us the quote that allows you to build the sanquinor with a sword.

EDIT:
In fact, give us a quote that allows us to build the sanguinor.

How is modelling a Glaive as an axe MFA?

Power swords and power axes both cost the same amount of points, and they are both better in certain situations.

I put it to you that NOT modelling the Glaive Encarmine as a power axe is MFA,

Just to clarify, MFA is not a rule in the ruleset and never has been. Its a fabrication of the playerbase.

And it actually covers things like posing a wraithlord to be crawling on its belly, having all your Fire Warriors be kneeling, putting Gabrial Seth on a 40mm base so he can get more models in Btb for his sweep attack, etc...

It does NOT cover giving a model an option it has legal access to.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Give me the quote that allows you to build the sanguinor with an axe.

Give us the quote that allows you to build the sanquinor with a sword.

EDIT:
In fact, give us a quote that allows us to build the sanguinor.

Page 3, Models and bases. Models are mounted on bases... if it's not assembled it's not the model it's part of a model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 blood lance wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
No, i see that on certain units certain power weapons are optimal. Give me the quote that allows you to build the sanguinor with an axe. All I have seen is the faq which does not mention modelling at all.

Give us the quote where it says you cant.

40k doesn't work with rules that say you cannot, very few games do. It works with rules that allow for something.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
40k doesn't work with rules that say you cannot, very few games do. It works with rules that allow for something.

And the rules do say a Glaive Encarmine is either an axe or a sword. I don't see why the Sanguinor having an axe is any different than swapping out the power weapons of Sergeants etc for the one you want.

Spetulhu wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
40k doesn't work with rules that say you cannot, very few games do. It works with rules that allow for something.

And the rules do say a Glaive Encarmine is either an axe or a sword. I don't see why the Sanguinor having an axe is any different than swapping out the power weapons of Sergeants etc for the one you want.

Well tbh his is modeled as a sword.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
40k doesn't work with rules that say you cannot, very few games do. It works with rules that allow for something.

And the rules do say a Glaive Encarmine is either an axe or a sword. I don't see why the Sanguinor having an axe is any different than swapping out the power weapons of Sergeants etc for the one you want.

Well tbh his is modeled as a sword.

And Blood Angel Librarians are modeled with a few different options, but none of them are Terminator Armor and a Storm Shield. Does that mean, even though it is a legal choice in the codex, they are not allowed to take this setup because they are not modeled that way and you would have to convert/kitbash to get this setup?

The option he has is the same option any model with 'a power weapon' has, though limited to two choices. Where the codex says 'power weapon' you have a choice in 6th between sword, axe, maul annd spear or something, though the codex doesn't mention these kinds of weapons. So modelling my SM Captain with a maul would be MFA as well I suppose?

 DeathReaper wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
40k doesn't work with rules that say you cannot, very few games do. It works with rules that allow for something.

And the rules do say a Glaive Encarmine is either an axe or a sword. I don't see why the Sanguinor having an axe is any different than swapping out the power weapons of Sergeants etc for the one you want.

Well tbh his is modeled as a sword.

And Blood Angel Librarians are modeled with a few different options, but none of them are Terminator Armor and a Storm Shield. Does that mean, even though it is a legal choice in the codex, they are not allowed to take this setup because they are not modeled that way and you would have to convert/kitbash to get this setup?

Just stating there is a difference that is all.

 pretre wrote:
There is no RAW for modelling, conversions, painting or assembly.

Simply accept that it is currently a vagueness in the rules and let it go. If you have a question or think that your interpretation may not be accepted, then discuss it with your TO/Opponent before the game/event.

not true. RaW allows you to use citadel models there is no RaW allowing converted models so RaW is no conversions. RaW the sanguinor has a sword as that is what the citadel miniature has.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Blood Angel Librarians are modeled with a few different options, but none of them are Terminator Armor and a Storm Shield. Does that mean, even though it is a legal choice in the codex, they are not allowed to take this setup because they are not modeled that way and you would have to convert/kitbash to get this setup?

Just stating there is a difference that is all.

Care to explain the difference, because I see no difference between the two examples.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 pretre wrote:
There is no RAW for modelling, conversions, painting or assembly.

Simply accept that it is currently a vagueness in the rules and let it go. If you have a question or think that your interpretation may not be accepted, then discuss it with your TO/Opponent before the game/event.

not true. RaW allows you to use citadel models there is no RaW allowing converted models so RaW is no conversions. RaW the sanguinor has a sword as that is what the citadel miniature has.

There is no RaW allowing painting and assembly, unless you have page numbers to the contrary.

So either provide page numbers, or accept that it is currently a vagueness in the rules and let it go.

Page 2 allows you to use citadel miniatures. Which by definition require assembly. Please provide a page saying you can use non-citadel miniatures or you can't by RaW.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Page 2 allows you to use citadel miniatures. Which by definition require assembly. Please provide a page saying you can use non-citadel miniatures or you can't by RaW.

No such definition occurs in the rules. So according to the rules you quoted, you should be playing with sprues, or piles of clipped bits, glued to bases. Also, heaven help you if paint your minis since that is clearly not allowed in the rules.

We're not saying that you can't assemble your minis. We are saying that there is as much rules backup for using assembled minis as there are converted, painted or kitbashed minis. I.e. None.

The rules don't define "the" either. Fortunately there is a definition for citadel miniatures so unless the rules change that we go with the status quo.

 FlingitNow wrote:
The rules don't define "the" either. Fortunately there is a definition for citadel miniatures so unless the rules change that we go with the status quo.

Actually, there is no definition of Citadel Miniatures either. There is a definition of model which says that they are Citadel Miniatures.

The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer
40,000 are referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow.

Accept the fact that assembly, conversion, kitbashing and painting are not covered under the rules unless you can show someplace they are.

Changing a sanguinary guards melee weapon is all well and good, but named characters? No. If you scratch build the named character, he needs a sword.

All this nonsense coming from blood angels players, did you see CSM players saying they wanted to chop off kharn's axe for a sword then 6th came out?

Changing the sanguinor's sword to an axe is clearly MFA, you can do it, the rules all you to do it, but it's MFA. You can deny it all you want, you can search for rules that allow you to feel better about yourself, you can make up fluff as to why he changed weapons, but at the end of the day you still Modeled For Advantage.

Did you even read my reply? Your answers are there. Nothing in the rules allows conversions or kitbashes. You are allowed to use citadel miniatures. Is there a citadel miniature for the sanguinor? If there is a citadel produced miniature of the sanguinor with an axe them raw you can use him with an axe otherwise...

Yes fling, I read it, but the modeling aspect of the hobby and the rules sometimes conflict, thus common sense is needed.

In 5th, by RAW if you didn't have eyes on non-vehicle models, they couldn't shoot. Only asses enforced that.

As for power weapons in 6th, there is some muddy water, but at the end of the day there is no harm in allowing normal units to change their modeled weapon. I draw the line at named characters however, they have a specific model, that looks a specific way.

You can hunt all over the ages for old models with different weapons on them, but in fairness allowing conversions for them is fine by me. You won't find named characters with different weapons than they have now, however.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Did you even read my reply? Your answers are there. Nothing in the rules allows conversions or kitbashes. You are allowed to use citadel miniatures. Is there a citadel miniature for the sanguinor? If there is a citadel produced miniature of the sanguinor with an axe them raw you can use him with an axe otherwise...

Is this a legal model for 40k?

After all it is a citadel miniature.

There are no rules that say you can assemble the citadel miniature for the sanguinor or paint him and there are not even any rules for what a citadel miniature is. Prove otherwise.

Juraigamer yes i get that and I'm not saying i would enforce raw here because that would be cheating. However anyone changing a special character is to me mfa. I was simply stating what the raw is.

Pretre check my previous post for how we define a citadel miniature and why the rulebook doesn't need to.

Wish people would stop arguing other posters intentions. I'd be fine with sanguinor with an axe and I don't play any marine flavour, nevermind BA.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Pretre check my previous post for how we define a citadel miniature and why the rulebook doesn't need to.

Yeah... You said we don't need to define it because we also don't need to define the. Good times.

So about that defining Citadel Miniatures thing. Or about any rules reference for assembly, painting, converting or kitbashing. Yeah, there is no rules reference for any of that. All of those things are external to the rules and an agreement between players when they come to a table together. MFA is the same thing. There is no rule for modelling for advantage because there is no rule for modelling. It is up to the players to decide when they approach the table how to handle it.

What these threads really come down to is that there are two groups of people:
- People who would play against a Sanguinor with an Axe
- People who wouldn't play against a Sanguinor with an Axe

Neither group has any rules support for their position. Both groups are relying on the implied social compact that you enter with the other player to determine whether the game occurs or not.

Anyone who claims that their side has rules to backup their ability to model, assemble, paint, kitbash or convert a miniature is incorrect (I would love to be proven wrong on this, please provide a page number).

Those that say the sanguinor doesn't have an axe do have raw on their side as well as the rules. The intention for the sanguinor to have a sword is pretty clear.

 pretre wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Pretre check my previous post for how we define a citadel miniature and why the rulebook doesn't need to.

Yeah... You said we don't need to define it because we also don't need to define the. Good times.

So about that defining Citadel Miniatures thing. Or about any rules reference for assembly, painting, converting or kitbashing. Yeah, there is no rules reference for any of that. All of those things are external to the rules and an agreement between players when they come to a table together. MFA is the same thing. There is no rule for modelling for advantage because there is no rule for modelling. It is up to the players to decide when they approach the table how to handle it.

What these threads really come down to is that there are two groups of people:
- People who would play against a Sanguinor with an Axe
- People who wouldn't play against a Sanguinor with an Axe

Neither group has any rules support for their position. Both groups are relying on the implied social compact that you enter with the other player to determine whether the game occurs or not.

Anyone who claims that their side has rules to backup their ability to model, assemble, paint, kitbash or convert a miniature is incorrect (I would love to be proven wrong on this, please provide a page number).

I feel that this kind of ends the thread. I agree whole heartedly.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Those that say the sanguinor doesn't have an axe do have raw on their side as well as the rules. The intention for the sanguinor to have a sword is pretty clear.

This is factually incorrect.

Please quote the rules where Sanguinor is listed as not having an axe.
Please quote the rules where Sanguinor is listed as not having a sword.
Please quote the rules where the Citadel Sanguinor mini is the only acceptable Citadel model to represent the Sanguinor.

I'll save you time. There are none.

I don't need to i produced the rules that allow you to use the sanguinor model made by citadel. You need permission to use a different model. Show me that and then raw you can. It is a permissive ruleset.