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.

IdentifyZero wrote:

pretre wrote:Page 61, under power weapons.
"If a model's warger says it has a power weapon which has no further special rules, look at the model to tell which type of power weapon it has:.."

Sounds pretty clear to me. If the model shipped with a sword, it has a sword. If an axe it has an axe. If a maul, it has a maul. If you are converting the unit from scratch, clearly, you could choose this yourself.

I think the whole: `Look at the model to tell which type of power weapon it has...` is different then, feel free to swap out your current models power weapons for any variation you feel like.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't say. Look at the kit to see which weapons come on the sprues... It says look at the model to see what weapon it has.....

There have never been restrictions on what you could or could not convert before, as long as the model has legal wargear choices.

Where does it stop you from putting a new sword on there that looks cooler? Or an axe or a maul?

What if I converted all of my DCA in 5th edition to have weird weapons? (Which they do in fact have, since I used Wyches to make my DCA.) They all have different weapon choices based on what I had before 6th launched. Is that modelling for advantage? Do I need to provide proof that I made the models during 5th?

IdentifyZero wrote:

pretre wrote:Page 61, under power weapons.
"If a model's warger says it has a power weapon which has no further special rules, look at the model to tell which type of power weapon it has:.."

Sounds pretty clear to me. If the model shipped with a sword, it has a sword. If an axe it has an axe. If a maul, it has a maul. If you are converting the unit from scratch, clearly, you could choose this yourself.

I think the whole: `Look at the model to tell which type of power weapon it has...` is different then, feel free to swap out your current models power weapons for any variation you feel like.

Why? GWs Chaos Terminators set comes with 2 Power Axes, a Power Fist, a Chainfist and a Power Maul. You are effectively saying that that unit must use those weapons as those are the ones they are supplied with, rather than taking a spare Power Axe from another set and swapping one guys Power Maul for it.

Remember, it's considered that all the variant Power WEAPONS are equal in game terms. I don't really mind your Ini 4 or 5 model swapping a sword for an axe, when it gives me the chance to kill it before it swings. You're basically swapping a Power Sword (Weapon in the old books) which is arguably better against anything but Terminator saves, for a weaker version of a Powerfist. That's fine.

IdentifyZero wrote:I did not see any FAQ or line in the BRB that says `When a unit has the option to buy a power weapon for x points, it may choose between a sword, axe, halberd or maul`

??? You did read the section on power weapons in the rule book, yes? It lists what those power weapons can be. There is a chart and everything. 'Power Weapom' is a broad category, made up of specific weapon types. This new edition gives us options.

If the model shipped with a sword, it has a sword. If an axe it has an axe. If a maul, it has a maul. If you are converting the unit from scratch, clearly, you could choose this yourself.

How absurdly unfair would your solution be? Full conversions can take any weapons, but no one can partially convert a model to change the weapon? Eh?

IdentifyZero wrote:

pretre wrote:Page 61, under power weapons.
"If a model's warger says it has a power weapon which has no further special rules, look at the model to tell which type of power weapon it has:.."

Sounds pretty clear to me. If the model shipped with a sword, it has a sword. If an axe it has an axe. If a maul, it has a maul. If you are converting the unit from scratch, clearly, you could choose this yourself.

I think the whole: `Look at the model to tell which type of power weapon it has...` is different then, feel free to swap out your current models power weapons for any variation you feel like.

I have Marines armed with Swords, Axes, Mauls, and I have converted a great many. Essentially stating that you can't swap weapons, isn't prohibited by any codex or from the BRB, unless a rule states that X Model carries X special weapon. So it wouldn't be modelling for an advantage as there is also a disadvantage to the current rules for each Power Weapon Type.

I don't even know why I'm involved in this debate, I play Tau...

pretre wrote:There have never been restrictions on what you could or could not convert before, as long as the model has legal wargear choices.

EXACTLY. Under 'Power Weapons' in the rulebook we have all the legal choices for 6th Edition. We pick from those legal choices when a model / unit can take a 'power weapon.'

Is that modelling for advantage?

It's an advantage because it gives you flexibility. But it is also completely, 100% legal.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:

pretre wrote:Page 61, under power weapons.
"If a model's warger says it has a power weapon which has no further special rules, look at the model to tell which type of power weapon it has:.."

Sounds pretty clear to me. If the model shipped with a sword, it has a sword. If an axe it has an axe. If a maul, it has a maul. If you are converting the unit from scratch, clearly, you could choose this yourself.

I think the whole: `Look at the model to tell which type of power weapon it has...` is different then, feel free to swap out your current models power weapons for any variation you feel like.

Why? GWs Chaos Terminators set comes with 2 Power Axes, a Power Fist, a Chainfist and a Power Maul. You are effectively saying that that unit must use those weapons as those are the ones they are supplied with, rather than taking a spare Power Axe from another set and swapping one guys Power Maul for it.

Those are not examples of models that are supposed to be armed with specific weapons as dictated by the model. You are building the model yourself and can arm it how you want, a model that ships with a sword attached, is clearly, meant to be armed with a sword.


I think you are overlooking some key facts in regards to this change and funny enough, all the players who are posting in defense presently seem to be referring to their GKs and Death cult assassins except for the poor example above, which is speaking of models you choose the weaponry of:

Face the facts:

#1. Power Weapon has constituted sword, axe and weird variations thereof for several editions and all have had identical rules.

#2. Several codices from 5th edition, the ones with the so called 'written for 6th rules' in mind, do not have alternate weapon choices listed for power weapon as regardless of appearance.

#3. GW also put out FAQs for every single army, none of those FAQs state you can swap out your power weapon to represent any type of weapon you want. Some models you could clearly get away with arming with a fist, maul or axe; as you arm them yourself. Other models are released by GW, for example, a special character with a power weapon or mastercrafted power weapon. Here is a good example:

Character wargear entry is listed as a mastercrafted power weapon (Think good example is codex: dark angels, master of the ravenwing on jetbike) and is not listed as being a STR6 Relic Blade like Azraels. I do not see any interpretation anywhere, that allows you to go ahead, swap his sword and make it an axe or a maul.

#4. With that in mind, the BRB does not say anywhere, you can change your existing models weaponry to suit your purposes in regards to this change to power weapons. That clearly, would not stop anyone from doing it and nobody can verify if you had them this way before for 'looks', but clearly, if you are changing them to have an axe and a sword, you are not modelling for looks now, but for advantage: THE ADVANTAGE OF HAVING TWO DIFFERENT ATTACK OPTIONS.

#5. Refusing to acknowledge that changing 1 of your 2 weapons on your DCA in 6th edition from a sword to an axe is for anything but rules advantage, you are not tricking anyone but yourself. Had you wanted them to look cool and varied, you may have done that in 5th edition or converted your own DCAs, as a poster has mentioned they did with wyches. In this case, he is not stating, 'omg axe and sword, so op, gonna swap all my guys to have both so I can use whatever I like!'.

This is the pleasure of building your own units though, in the example of the person who converted his DCAs. The only issues that might arise further in changes like this, is people claiming counts as, the weapons need to be clearly distinguishable. Now, the game is pretty clear as to what type of weapon does what. Prior, an axe, sword and maul all had the same stats in close combat for the past two editions (With some codex exceptions).

#6. The fact that several people on this post, have stated, explicitly that they are changing their weapons to have multiple attacks at differing values and options has nothing to do with you modelling what you like or think looks cool or you would have done it before; that is called modelling for advantage.

#7. So, while it may be an interpretation of the rules that when you buy a power weapon now, you can choose which it is within the guidelines listed (Still needs an FAQ as it is open to far too much abuse right now, including modifying special characters). None of this changes the fact, that changing your weapons out for rules advantage is modelling for advantage.

IdentifyZero wrote:Those are not examples of models that are supposed to be armed with specific weapons as dictated by the model. You are building the model yourself and can arm it how you want, a model that ships with a sword attached, is clearly, meant to be armed with a sword.

Since when? Seriously, do you have anything other than your own opinion to support this? 6th Edition specifically tells us what counts as a power weapon. So if your model can take a power weapon, under the rules, it can take a power sword, a power axe, power halberd, power maul, power stave.... because those are all power weapons.


And again, you are making an absurd distinction between purchased models and fully converted ones. Why should people who fully convert a model get to pick the type of power weapon but people who buy models not allowed to do so? That's illogical.

Joe Mama wrote:

pretre wrote:There have never been restrictions on what you could or could not convert before, as long as the model has legal wargear choices.

EXACTLY. Under 'Power Weapons' in the rulebook we have all the legal choices for 6th Edition. We pick from those legal choices when a model / unit can take a 'power weapon.'

Is that modelling for advantage?

It's an advantage because it gives you flexibility. But it is also completely, 100% legal.

I didn't say it was illegal at any point, I have stated over and over it is modelling for advantage in the case of several of the people who have posted. There is no escaping the FACT, that if you are changing your models to take advantage of rules or to gain an advantage, edge... it is modelling for advantage.

Why keep denying it?

IdentifyZero wrote:none of those FAQs state you can swap out your power weapon to represent any type of weapon you want.

'Power Weapon' is a broad category of weapons. If you go from power sword to power axe, you still have a power weapon, since they are both power weapons.

Joe Mama wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:Those are not examples of models that are supposed to be armed with specific weapons as dictated by the model. You are building the model yourself and can arm it how you want, a model that ships with a sword attached, is clearly, meant to be armed with a sword.

Since when? Seriously, do you have anything other than your own opinion to support this? 6th Edition specifically tells us what counts as a power weapon. So if your model can take a power weapon, under the rules, it can take a power sword, a power axe, power halberd, power maul, power stave.... because those are all power weapons.


And again, you are making an absurd distinction between purchased models and fully converted ones. Why should people who fully convert a model get to pick the type of power weapon but people who buy models not allowed to do so? That's illogical.

If you purchase the GW Model that has a fixed armament and you change it for advantage, you are modelling for advantage.

Someone who builds their own model, is not, swapping the weapon for something more advantageous.

I think most of you are failing to read beyond this and realize, I am calling out the modelling for advantage people, that is all. I stated I wouldn't play someone who obviously did that. I didn't say it was illegal, I did ask for a quote to the rules, where it says you can and have even accepted the definition despite poor wording, as you can be armed with any weapon out of power weapon if you can purchase it for your unit.

I fail to see how this takes away from it being MODELLING FOR ADVANTAGE!

Please don't make me define advantage for all of you, that would be insulting the intelligence of the crowd here and you are all very smart individuals, so I do not want to belittle with anything like that. What blows my mind, is how some of you are trying to defend that this is anything but modelling for advantage.

IdentifyZero wrote:it is modelling for advantage.

It is a new feature of the rules, here in 6th Edition. You, with your refusal to play people over this, make it sound like some sneaky underhanded tactic, when it is obvious to everyone else that GW put this in on purpose to give people more options (and as always, to sell more stuff). Really. It's a basic, fundamental feature of the new CC system which gives power weapons different AP values.

Joe Mama wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:none of those FAQs state you can swap out your power weapon to represent any type of weapon you want.

'Power Weapon' is a broad category of weapons. If you go from power sword to power axe, you still have a power weapon, since they are both power weapons.

Way to continuously avoid the point!!! I've acknowledged several times you can arm the models how you want.

This is about modelling for advantage, please, go ahead and defend how you swapping out is not based on this:

Joe Mama wrote:For my Death Cult Assassins, if I wanted to cover my bases, I would have to take off one sword off each one and replace it with an axe. Then depending on the opponent they could decide to use the AP3 sword at I6 or he AP2 axe at I1.


But my guys look sweet with double swords and switching one out is going to be a pain in the buttocks.

Some key terms: to cover my bases, take off one sword, replace it with an axe, depending on opponent could decide to use AP3 or AP2. Just a brief summary, followed up by "my guys look sweet with double swords".

Based on this, you are not modelling for appearance. You are modelling for advantage. That is the point I am making, instead you keep trying to refute things I've acknowledged multiple times.

IdentifyZero wrote:#5. Refusing to acknowledge that changing 1 of your 2 weapons on your DCA in 6th edition from a sword to an axe is for anything but rules advantage, you are not tricking anyone but yourself. Had you wanted them to look cool and varied, you may have done that in 5th edition or converted your own DCAs, as a poster has mentioned they did with wyches. In this case, he is not stating, 'omg axe and sword, so op, gonna swap all my guys to have both so I can use whatever I like!'.

This is the pleasure of building your own units though, in the example of the person who converted his DCAs. The only issues that might arise further in changes like this, is people claiming counts as, the weapons need to be clearly distinguishable. Now, the game is pretty clear as to what type of weapon does what. Prior, an axe, sword and maul all had the same stats in close combat for the past two editions (With some codex exceptions).

So now, in order for them to be easily distinguishable, I need to update my Wych DCA to have clear weapons (swords/axes/mauls) since right now they have chains, fist weapons, knives, etc. I plan on mixing in a variety into the squad when I update them to 6th edition.

Oh oh.

Joe Mama wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:it is modelling for advantage.

It is a new feature of the rules, here in 6th Edition. You, with your refusal to play people over this, make it sound like some sneaky underhanded tactic, when it is obvious to everyone else that GW put this in on purpose to give people more options (and as always, to sell more stuff). Really. It's a basic, fundamental feature of the new CC system which gives power weapons different AP values.

See your quote here in this post, where you state your intent to model for advantage? Now you are trying to defend it as new rules, we are ALL aware it is new rules and each edition brings changes.

The question is, who are you fooling by the continuous claim it is not modelling for advantage? You are changing weapons, for no other reason, then to take ADVANTAGE of the new rules, to take ADVANTAGE of the flexibility you may now have etc...

IdentifyZero wrote:You are modelling for advantage. That is the point I am making,

Joe Mama wrote:

pretre wrote:Is that modelling for advantage?

It's an advantage ... But it is also completely, 100% legal.

Seems you missed this before.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

IdentifyZero wrote:You are changing weapons, for no other reason, then to take ADVANTAGE of the new rules, to take ADVANTAGE of the flexibility you may now have etc...

Uh, for reals? I am not being punk'd right now? Of course I choose wargear on the basis of whether or not it will be helpful to my army. Due to the current rules, within the category of 'Power Weapon' I have choices to make. Just like everyone else.


You refusing to play people over this is downright absurd.

pretre wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:#5. Refusing to acknowledge that changing 1 of your 2 weapons on your DCA in 6th edition from a sword to an axe is for anything but rules advantage, you are not tricking anyone but yourself. Had you wanted them to look cool and varied, you may have done that in 5th edition or converted your own DCAs, as a poster has mentioned they did with wyches. In this case, he is not stating, 'omg axe and sword, so op, gonna swap all my guys to have both so I can use whatever I like!'.

This is the pleasure of building your own units though, in the example of the person who converted his DCAs. The only issues that might arise further in changes like this, is people claiming counts as, the weapons need to be clearly distinguishable. Now, the game is pretty clear as to what type of weapon does what. Prior, an axe, sword and maul all had the same stats in close combat for the past two editions (With some codex exceptions).

So now, in order for them to be easily distinguishable, I need to update my Wych DCA to have clear weapons (swords/axes/mauls) since right now they have chains, fist weapons, knives, etc. I plan on mixing in a variety into the squad when I update them to 6th edition.

Oh oh.

Not sure what 'Oh oh' is supposed to mean, so I will ignore it.

You nailed it, you do need to update your Wych DCA to properly identify which weapons they wield now due to the changes, given their chains, fists and knives are what they are armed with. Granted, if you were having all of their weapons count as power swords for example, I don't think you would ever have an issue. If some have mauls, some have axes and some have swords etc.. then for sure, you should definitely change them up. As many of us who have played for quite some time know, the units have changed quite a bit over the past 20 years and some once legal options are no longer legal and in many cases, you either counts-as, put the model away or convert it to suit.

WYSIWYG right?

Changing your clearly defined weapons, in this case, DCA Swords into axes, is not fixing them to be proper with the current rules, but modelling for advantage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joe Mama wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:You are modelling for advantage. That is the point I am making,

Joe Mama wrote:

pretre wrote:Is that modelling for advantage?

It's an advantage ... But it is also completely, 100% legal.

Seems you missed this before.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

IdentifyZero wrote:You are changing weapons, for no other reason, then to take ADVANTAGE of the new rules, to take ADVANTAGE of the flexibility you may now have etc...

Uh, for reals? I am not being punk'd right now? Of course I choose wargear on the basis of whether or not it will be helpful to my army. Due to the current rules, within the category of 'Power Weapon' I have choices to make. Just like everyone else.


You refusing to play people over this is downright absurd.

I did not miss it, seems you should re-read a post about two up when I replied to you where I said I wasn't disputing the legality of it rules wise.

Let's use some logic here Joe, everything I've seen from you tells me you are a very intelligent and articulate person, so...

You admit, this is for advantage as you do not HAVE to change these units.

You are now modelling your units due to these changes, that give a potential advantage.

A + B = C.

In this case Advantage + Modelling = Modelling for Advantage (To put it really simply)


FYI - the refusing to play people thing? There is a reason I don't go play in most stores and deal with the counts-as-kiddies, the plastic grey armies or the people who simply just have to jump on the bandwagon to the very best thing. I didn't say I would refuse to play you, because you planned to make some DCAs with axes/swords.

I said I would not play people who model for advantage, if I met you and never spoke to you? I would have no way of knowing when or where you did the modifications and it would not matter. You did state you were modelling for advantage in your post though, there is no dispute over that. With that in mind, knowing that, yes, I would not play with you, as a stranger; only knowing that about you. Does it matter? No, because we would never play.

I am also sorry if that statement has caused contention between you and I, it was not meant as an attack on you or a single out like (OMG I"LL NEVER PLAY AGAINST JOE MAMA). It was a blanket statement. Just like I wouldn't play against the kind of person who models a 12" extra barrel at the end of their tank for the purposes of range... (Worse then that happens locally, on a regular basis)

IdentifyZero wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:it is modelling for advantage.

It is a new feature of the rules, here in 6th Edition. You, with your refusal to play people over this, make it sound like some sneaky underhanded tactic, when it is obvious to everyone else that GW put this in on purpose to give people more options (and as always, to sell more stuff). Really. It's a basic, fundamental feature of the new CC system which gives power weapons different AP values.

See your quote here in this post, where you state your intent to model for advantage? Now you are trying to defend it as new rules, we are ALL aware it is new rules and each edition brings changes.

The question is, who are you fooling by the continuous claim it is not modelling for advantage? You are changing weapons, for no other reason, then to take ADVANTAGE of the new rules, to take ADVANTAGE of the flexibility you may now have etc...

On what page is modeling for advantage not allowed? I saw the blurb about bases, which makes sense,but I didn't see anything saying that modeling for advantage was against the rules? I know it was frowned upon in 5th explicity, and players may have convered that mentality over, but does the rules?

IdentifyZero wrote:Changing your clearly defined weapons, in this case, DCA Swords into axes, is not fixing them to be proper with the current rules, but modelling for advantage.

DCA don't have swords. They have 2 power weapons. I am free to model those two power weapons as I choose. Where are the swords clearly defined?

Acardia wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:it is modelling for advantage.

It is a new feature of the rules, here in 6th Edition. You, with your refusal to play people over this, make it sound like some sneaky underhanded tactic, when it is obvious to everyone else that GW put this in on purpose to give people more options (and as always, to sell more stuff). Really. It's a basic, fundamental feature of the new CC system which gives power weapons different AP values.

See your quote here in this post, where you state your intent to model for advantage? Now you are trying to defend it as new rules, we are ALL aware it is new rules and each edition brings changes.

The question is, who are you fooling by the continuous claim it is not modelling for advantage? You are changing weapons, for no other reason, then to take ADVANTAGE of the new rules, to take ADVANTAGE of the flexibility you may now have etc...

On what page is modeling for advantage not allowed? I saw the blurb about bases, which makes sense,but I didn't see anything saying that modeling for advantage was against the rules? I know it was frowned upon in 5th explicity, and players may have convered that mentality over, but does the rules?

Modelling for advantage has always been around, it is a concept, an idea, a label for a particular action; it will not go away. It's always been frowned on, it's never been strictly against the rules because it is very subjective.

A buddy of mine showed me his friends amazing counts as IG (Squats) and his tank turrets were all the same size as the tanks. In fact, his army looked amazing and was well modeled. The rules state that tank turrets did not count for determining LoS. Guess what? He pulled that kind of crap on people, which despite his beautiful conversions, meant his models were modeled for advantage; in this case, LoS/targetting as the turret gave it los and also made it easier to hide the main tank body. Would I refuse to play him for that kind of shenanigans? Hell yeah.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:Changing your clearly defined weapons, in this case, DCA Swords into axes, is not fixing them to be proper with the current rules, but modelling for advantage.

DCA don't have swords. They have 2 power weapons. I am free to model those two power weapons as I choose. Where are the swords clearly defined?

My point with the DCA, if you use the GW model they ship with a very specific weapon. According to the BRB... well I'm not going to keep rehashing this if you are going to ignore all the current points and this about being modelling for advantage and act like it is about rules.

BRB says the weapon it is armed with.
DCA are sold by GW with swords.

Point was there, you swap it from the sword for anything but looks, you've just modeled for advantage as you wanted the flexibility/advantages another weapon gave you.

So what you are saying is that Modeling for advantage is not in the rules? Other than bases?

Acardia wrote:So what you are saying is that Modeling for advantage is not in the rules? Other than bases?

I guess you must be fairly new to the hobby. The idea of people modelling for advantage has been around since I started in 1992.

It doesn't go away with the advent of a new edition, in fact, it's always a bigger problem during the transition period.

We're not discussing bases, which GW has always been fairly clear on, if a model ships with a base, that is the size of base you have to use. That also does not and has not stopped people from trimming down flyer and skimmer bases for example, placing ICs on 40mm bases, placing 40mm models on 25mm bases etc.. It's rare that kind of thing is ever enforced, except on a community level.

I'm glad you are acknowledging now that is is modeling for advantage. I was not saying they would have an illegal army for doing this. Granted, given the army.unir that seems to be in discussion (death cult assassins) most of them in use by GK players, with the odd SoB player sprinkled in.... helps put into perspective why most players here don't want to acknowledge it if Modeling for advantage.

IdentifyZero wrote:You did state you were modelling for advantage in your post though, there is no dispute over that. With that in mind, knowing that, yes, I would not play with you,

But GW added it to the current rules. It is an intentional feature of the current ruleset. They made AP values for power weapons and power fists. The type of power weapon matters. It's part of the new system. They are encouraging it. And you *still* are treating it like some bad, underhanded tactic. Unbelieveable.

Its not really modeling for advantage because anyone who can take a Power weapon can take any "Power weapon" this means that Armies like Eldar and Dark Eldar have more than 1 to 3 models in there army that can take on enemies with 2+ armor, buying a "Power weapon" is paying the points for your choice of variant of Power weapon

IdentifyZero wrote: Granted, given the army.unir that seems to be in discussion (death cult assassins) most of them in use by GK players, with the odd SoB player sprinkled in.... helps put into perspective why most players here don't want to acknowledge it if Modeling for advantage.

Ahh, and now we come down to it.

Way to attack the poster and not the post.

Mantle wrote:Its not really modeling for advantage because anyone who can take a Power weapon can take any "Power weapon" this means that Armies like Eldar and Dark Eldar have more than 1 to 3 models in there army that can take on enemies with 2+ armor, buying a "Power weapon" is paying the points for your choice of variant of Power weapon

Clearly, you need to look up the definition of modeling in regards to the hobby and advantage.

No matter what way you try to cover the story or how you try to explain it, it's still being re(modelled) or modelled for an advantage.

I've acknowledged repeatly that A) It is legal B) Is is not 'breaking the rules'


I have however, stated a simple, logical conclusion and label for the action that is correct regardless of how you try to explain away your weapon swaps. If I go start swapping out weapons on my BT command squad so some dudes now have axes instead of swords.

Did I follow the rules? Yep.
Is it illegal? Nope.
Did I model for advantage? Yep.

IdentifyZero wrote:

Acardia wrote:So what you are saying is that Modeling for advantage is not in the rules? Other than bases?

I guess you must be fairly new to the hobby. The idea of people modelling for advantage has been around since I started in 1992.

It doesn't go away with the advent of a new edition, in fact, it's always a bigger problem during the transition period.

We're not discussing bases, which GW has always been fairly clear on, if a model ships with a base, that is the size of base you have to use. That also does not and has not stopped people from trimming down flyer and skimmer bases for example, placing ICs on 40mm bases, placing 40mm models on 25mm bases etc.. It's rare that kind of thing is ever enforced, except on a community level.

I'm glad you are acknowledging now that is is modeling for advantage. I was not saying they would have an illegal army for doing this. Granted, given the army.unir that seems to be in discussion (death cult assassins) most of them in use by GK players, with the odd SoB player sprinkled in.... helps put into perspective why most players here don't want to acknowledge it if Modeling for advantage.

No i've been involved for about the same length of time as you, but it's been a concept, just as conversions are a concept, and in this regard both are are entertwined and not against the rules.

pretre wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote: Granted, given the army.unir that seems to be in discussion (death cult assassins) most of them in use by GK players, with the odd SoB player sprinkled in.... helps put into perspective why most players here don't want to acknowledge it if Modeling for advantage.

Ahh, and now we come down to it.

Way to attack the poster and not the post.

How is that attacking you in any way? I'm confused how you manage to victimize yourself there.

I think you do not have any reasonable way to deny it is modelling for advantage, so now you are going to claim it is an attack on you? LOL Come on, let's continue to act like adults and not victimized children, you were not attacked in any way, shape or form.