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.

If I go start swapping out weapons on my BT command squad so some dudes now have meltas instead of bolters.

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

Let me change two words to show how silly this is.

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.

That's because there is no post to attack. GW changed how power weapons work. GW made 'power weapon' into a category of weapon, of which the player can choose which one to field. It matters tactically which variant of 'power weapon' is fielded. Hard choices need to be made in many instances.

But IZ is going to keep implying there is something unsavory about doing this. God knows what he thinks about entries like "Swap X for Y, cost Free". He must be really mad about those too.

pretre wrote:

If I go start swapping out weapons on my BT command squad so some dudes now have meltas instead of bolters.

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

Let me change two words to show how silly this is.

Sure. Because those are different options.

As opposed to "power weapons" which can include a variety of things.

IdentifyZero wrote:

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.

"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."

Your implication is that of course GK players would MFA. That's just silly. I'm not a GK player, so I wasn't attacked.

Acardia wrote:

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.

What you are doing is called, seeing what you want to see. I stated in the post above yours for maybe the 10th time? It is not against the rules. Seriously, I am taking the time to read your posts, have the decency to know what you are replying to, in this case, you are shoving something down my throat that I have repeatedly already said and acting as if I am not acknowledging that. If that is not your intent, I apologize for how I have misinterpreted the reply.

All i see, is a bunch of people trying to tell me BUT THE RULES SAY IT IS OK, when I have said yes, they do.

I also stated, modelling for advantage is not 'illegal' or explicitly against the rules.

Please, read, before replying, I am begging you because it seems like you are rehashing stuff I've said already and trying to use it as an argument against me, when I have stated the same things you have.

kirsanth wrote:Sure. Because those are different options.

As opposed to "power weapons" which can include a variety of things.

Fair enough. Although apparently power weapons have different options as well now.

pretre wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Sure. Because those are different options.

As opposed to "power weapons" which can include a variety of things.

Fair enough. Although apparently power weapons have different options as well now.

Exactly. Which was my point.

"Power weapon" as an option, includes options.

Is it MFA? Sure. Is putting a melta on a guy who can take a melta MFA under this definition? Sure.

Is outfitting your Captain with a Relic Blade modelling for advantage (if it is a legitimate option)? Sure.

Are they all okay? Yes.

The reason people are railing against you is this is quite different from MFA where you make a model a different size by changing its profile. There is no 1" tall chimera that is acceptable by the rules. There is a DCA with Axe/Sword.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

pretre wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Sure. Because those are different options.

As opposed to "power weapons" which can include a variety of things.

Fair enough. Although apparently power weapons have different options as well now.

Exactly. Which was my point.

"Power weapon" as an option, includes options.

/highfive

pretre wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:

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.

"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."

Your implication is that of course GK players would MFA. That's just silly. I'm not a GK player, so I wasn't attacked.

I own GKs and SoB.

It is a well known and proven stereotype in most cases, especially with the tournaments at the end of 5th that... Grey Knights were pretty much the most complained about, most used army that is also the brunt of many stereotypes; often justified by the people who play the armies themselves.

Look back at the start of this topic, it was filled with GK Paladin players complaining how 'useless' and 'worthless' their army and their terminators are etc.. now.

The only people who should or would be offended by the implication a GK player might model for advantage, is someone who does. That is often the psychological trigger in most blanket or overarching statements that leads into people getting defensive when there is no need to.

Again though, NONE of this changes, that this is modelling for advantage!!! xD

IdentifyZero wrote:The only people who should or would be offended by the implication a GK player might model for advantage, is someone who does. That is often the psychological trigger in most blanket or overarching statements that leads into people getting defensive when there is no need to.

Again though, NONE of this changes, that this is modelling for advantage!!! xD

Also, people who aren't modelling for advantage (in the sense that they are trying to do something unseemly to gain an advantage) when they are simply modelling upgrades appropriately would also be offended.

You seem to have a skewed definition of modelling for advantage. Can you define it for us?

pretre wrote:Is it MFA? Sure. Is putting a melta on a guy who can take a melta MFA under this definition? Sure.

Is outfitting your Captain with a Relic Blade modelling for advantage (if it is a legitimate option)? Sure.

Are they all okay? Yes.

The reason people are railing against you is this is quite different from MFA where you make a model a different size by changing its profile. There is no 1" tall chimera that is acceptable by the rules. There is a DCA with Axe/Sword.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

pretre wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Sure. Because those are different options.

As opposed to "power weapons" which can include a variety of things.

Fair enough. Although apparently power weapons have different options as well now.

Exactly. Which was my point.

"Power weapon" as an option, includes options.

/highfive

Pretre, once again, this has soared over your head and into the clouds.

When you create your squad, is buying a meltagun for a member of the squad a legitimate option? Yes.
When you create your captain and arm him and pay his points, you bought a Relic Blade.

If you decide to put a fancier meltagun on the gunner? It's modelling for looks.
If a new weapon option called the Meltagun 2.0 came out and you swapped the models weapons for no other reason? Modelling for advantage.

If you made a captain with a power sword as an example:

You could claim it as a relic blade, points wise, if you paid or a power weapon (Sword) depending on the points you paid for the unit, as these are different upgrade options you have used; not base wargear.

If you had your DCA using swords for an edition and then find out now, that if you give them axes to, they can have multiple attack options and decide to remodel them?

You modeled for advantage.

If you had DCA using swords fo ran edition and then find out now, you can buy some sexy looking swords to swap out?

You modeled for aesthetic.

pretre wrote:Is it MFA? Sure. Is putting a melta on a guy who can take a melta MFA under this definition? Sure.
Is outfitting your Captain with a Relic Blade modelling for advantage (if it is a legitimate option)? Sure.

Which is why the IZ definition of MFA is silly and ridiculous. It is really better stated as "choosing wargear based on the rules." Sometimes wargear costs points, sometimes it is 'free' (built into the model's cost). Sometimes there are free options, sometimes not. Deciding on a power axe over a power sword is a (free) wargear choice that the 6th edition rules say we can make. But for some reason that I can't wrap my head around, IZ claims having such a choice is bad / sneaky / unhonorable and so on.

IdentifyZero wrote:If you had your DCA using swords for an edition and then find out now, that if you give them axes to, they can have multiple attack options and decide to remodel them?

You modeled for advantage.

If you had DCA using swords fo ran edition and then find out now, you can buy some sexy looking swords to swap out?

You modeled for aesthetic.

Define modelling for advantage. Right now, what you are describing is changing your models to reflect the rules and upgrades available to you, which is MFA only by the loosest possible definition.

Is there anything limiting each model to one variant of power weapon?

I see no problem with modeling your unit that is equipped with "power weapons" with your choice of axes, swords, mauls etc. but having multiples and switching from round to round seems wrong.

What would stop you from gluing every type available around the models waist to have the best weapon for any fight?

Just wondering if the rulebook or FAQ deal with that eventuality.

Eldarain wrote:
What would stop you from gluing every type available around the models waist to have the best weapon for any fight?

Because the model only gets 2 power weapons. You can only model 2.

pretre wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:The only people who should or would be offended by the implication a GK player might model for advantage, is someone who does. That is often the psychological trigger in most blanket or overarching statements that leads into people getting defensive when there is no need to.

Again though, NONE of this changes, that this is modelling for advantage!!! xD

Also, people who aren't modelling for advantage (in the sense that they are trying to do something unseemly to gain an advantage) when they are simply modelling upgrades appropriately would also be offended.

You seem to have a skewed definition of modelling for advantage. Can you define it for us?

You seem to have a skewed definition of advantage.

Definition of ADVANTAGE

1: superiority of position or condition <higher ground gave the enemy the advantage>
2: a factor or circumstance of benefit to its possessor <lacked the advantages of an education>
3 : benefit, gain; especially : benefit resulting from some course of action
4: the first point won in tennis after deuce
— to advantage
: so as to produce a favorable impression or effect <wishing to be seen to advantage>

Just copied and pasted off Webster for you, so you don't have to look it up.

I think the third point here might help you: benefit or gain, especially, resulting from some course of action.

The benefit: Versatility with your weapon options for attacks.

Gain: The ability to attack at differing APs. Also crosses over with benefit, the two are very much the same thing.

Action: Modelling your troops with the different weapon.



Therefore: Modelling for advantage.

Eldarain wrote:Is there anything limiting each model to one variant of power weapon?

Uh, when you pay for a "power weapon" on the model, or it comes with one built in to the cost, it's one. Not an assortment of 4. Each weapon needs to be purchased.

IdentifyZero wrote:You seem to have a skewed definition of advantage.

Definition of ADVANTAGE

1: superiority of position or condition <higher ground gave the enemy the advantage>
2: a factor or circumstance of benefit to its possessor <lacked the advantages of an education>
3 : benefit, gain; especially : benefit resulting from some course of action
4: the first point won in tennis after deuce
— to advantage
: so as to produce a favorable impression or effect <wishing to be seen to advantage>

Just copied and pasted off Webster for you, so you don't have to look it up.

I think the third point here might help you: benefit or gain, especially, resulting from some course of action.

The benefit: Versatility with your weapon options for attacks.

Gain: The ability to attack at differing APs. Also crosses over with benefit, the two are very much the same thing.

Action: Modelling your troops with the different weapon.



Therefore: Modelling for advantage.

Okay, so under your definition. If plasma guns become better than melta guns and I change the weapon type of my models, I have gained a benefit in the new edition by modelling my troops with a different weapon.

I changed my mind. Under your skewed version of MFA, I am definitely MFA. Unfortunately for you, everyone else seems to have a different definition of what MFA is.

IdentifyZero wrote:Therefore: Modelling for advantage.

Tell me how your definition varies from "choosing wargear based on the rules."

Eldarain wrote:Is there anything limiting each model to one variant of power weapon?

I see no problem with modeling your unit that is equipped with "power weapons" with your choice of axes, swords, mauls etc. but having multiples and switching from round to round seems wrong.

What would stop you from gluing every type available around the models waist to have the best weapon for any fight?

Just wondering if the rulebook or FAQ deal with that eventuality.

That is part of what I am getting at here.

It's one thing to be armed with 2 swords or 2 axes for example on a normal unit if they can. To have a sword and an axe and switch back and forth is one of the key reasons, the example by Joe Mama IS Modeling for Advantage.

My definition of MFA would be changing your model in a way not supported by the rule to gain an unfair advantage over your opponent.

Examples:
- Modelling all of your space marine lying down.
- Putting a 3" 'base' under your dreadnought so it can always see over intervening terrain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

IdentifyZero wrote:That is part of what I am getting at here.

It's one thing to be armed with 2 swords or 2 axes for example on a normal unit if they can. To have a sword and an axe and switch back and forth is one of the key reasons, the example by Joe Mama IS Modeling for Advantage.

Let's say I'm a wolf Lord and I buy a TH and a FB. I switch back and forth between two legal wargear choice that I paid for (just like the DCA). Is that MFA?

IdentifyZero wrote:
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.

Just to bring up a wacky idea: Sister of battle squad leaders (It's been so long, I can't remember the title...) are sculpted with 2-3 poses. Some with a power weapon maul, some with a power weapon sword. Is it OK, in this case, to chop a maul off and replace with a sword, if there exists a standard model with that variant?

Heck, I'm a wolf lord and buy a Frost Blade and a Frost Axe (two upgrades that cost the same in my codex) so I can swap between. MFA?

Joe Mama wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:Therefore: Modelling for advantage.

Tell me how your definition varies from "choosing wargear based on the rules."

I think my 5 year old nephew might have a better chance of getting the point then someone who does not want to see beyond their own nose here:

You are not swapping your swords for axes or swords for mauls.

You are remodeling to have ONE of EACH (Sword and Axe) to give a clear advantage, units outside of a special character/independent character who can buy multiples of weapons would not be able to have. You are trying to make your DCA, more powerful then they already are, giving them a FURTHER advantage.

Were you just swapping your swords for axes, I might see it.

You are doing 1 sword and 1 axe according to your post for no other purpose then to take advantage of the new rules and ALSO to gain yourself an extra advantage with your DCAs (the ability to swap attack types, which essentially, changes the unit in a very big way).

If you do not see how this is modelling for advantage, I am GLAD I will never have to play you or meet you because it would not end very nicely if I had to deal with such ignorance in real life with any issue.

Can we take this MFA discussion elsewhere now and get back to the FAQ's?

Balance wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:
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.

Just to bring up a wacky idea: Sister of battle squad leaders (It's been so long, I can't remember the title...) are sculpted with 2-3 poses. Some with a power weapon maul, some with a power weapon sword. Is it OK, in this case, to chop a maul off and replace with a sword, if there exists a standard model with that variant?

You've converted your model to have an advantage. According to IZ, that's MFA.

pretre wrote:Heck, I'm a wolf lord and buy a Frost Blade and a Frost Axe (two upgrades that cost the same in my codex) so I can swap between. MFA?

Wolf Lord is an IC. He has the ability to purchase specific wargear, in this case, two different weapons that give two different abilities.

DCA are a normal unit, elites/troops or hq depending on your army. They have no options to buy wargear. They were clearly NOT intended to have two weapon types so they could choose which initiative and AP to attack at. If the DCA were swapping from sword to axes? Sure.

Making sure they all have a sword and an axe is modelling for advantage, if you don't get it, you never will.

Death Cult Assassins have official GW models available to them and they're holding swords. If they were holding mixed weapons or strange looking weapons I'd understand the argument for having both power axes and swords on them, but they don't. It's a pretty clear case of modelling for advantage.

You know what the official model looks like and you either change it or alternatively make a new DIY model that doesn't look or play like it. Modelling for advantage.

Balance wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:
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.

Just to bring up a wacky idea: Sister of battle squad leaders (It's been so long, I can't remember the title...) are sculpted with 2-3 poses. Some with a power weapon maul, some with a power weapon sword. Is it OK, in this case, to chop a maul off and replace with a sword, if there exists a standard model with that variant?

You're not giving them a power maul and power sword. In this case, they actually do pay for their upgrade as well and are not a regular unit type, but in fact, an upgrade. If you swapped the weapon, that is fine.

the DCA swapping WEAPONS from one type to another, is also fine. The DCA swapping 1 weapon for an axe and having an axe and a sword, is not fine.

IdentifyZero wrote:DCA are a normal unit, elites/troops or hq depending on your army. They have no options to buy wargear. They were clearly NOT intended to have two weapon types so they could choose which initiative and AP to attack at. If the DCA were swapping from sword to axes? Sure.

Making sure they all have a sword and an axe is modelling for advantage, if you don't get it, you never will.

Tell me where you saw the intention for what kind of weapons they should be able to get? I wasn't aware they you had access to the game designers.

And I changed my mind. I completely agree that under your definition of Modelling for Advantage, I am MFA.

I just think that your definition diverges from the rest of ours.