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.

Therion wrote:Death Cult Assassins have official GW models available to them and they're holding two 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.

Thanks Therion. Exactly what I've been saying :/ *thumbs up*

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.

You never looked at the DCA model that Games Workshop makes?

Holy Balls. Its not like the axe strikes at initiative thus making it a no-brainer between it and the sword.

You get two options when you pay for a power weapon
>Initiative of the model, AP3, bonus for two weapons
>I1, models strength +1, AP2, bonus for two weapons (and get murdered by the sword in a challenge before you get to do diddly squat, hence the 'option' to model an axe)

and finally, pay an extra 10 points on average for an I1 weapon that doubles strength and makes you AP2.

You can play either the axe or the sword. If I see a sword and you swing into termies claiming its an axe... no. If you model an axe and swing into my sword wielding sergeant who duels you claiming you too have a sword... no.

Are we seeing the fine points of GW giving ALL players an option without making it a codex entry style option?

Please?

Are you all there yet?

Therion wrote: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.

So anytime you convert a model that doesn't look exactly like the official model, you have MFA? Good to know.

It seems like it would have made more sense if the rules had been written that all current 'power weapons' remain generic 'power weapons' until the governing army list is replaced and/or a FAQ makes the change.

No change to current armies, but when Codex: Sisters of Battle ships (So... 2036?) it could say that a power sword is X, a Power Maul is Y, etc. for appropriate units. FAQs could sparingly 'patch' those instances where a unit should really, really already have a Power Axe or similar to fit canon and game mechanics requirements.

pretre wrote:

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.

There is all of 3 of you arguing that your DCA should be able to have swords and axes at the same time and trying to say it is not MFA.

IdentifyZero wrote:You are remodeling to have ONE of EACH (Sword and Axe) to give a clear advantage,

Yes. Of course. Wargear is taken for advantages. I can take any type of power weapons I want. 'Power Weapon' in codexes now is exactly and 100% equal to the words "choice of Power Sword, Power Maul, Power Axe, or Power Stave."

because it would not end very nicely if I had to deal with such ignorance in real life with any issue.

Please stop with this nonsense unless you are trying to get banned.

Therion wrote:

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.

You never looked at the DCA model that Games Workshop makes?

Just checked your gallery. Perhaps those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. This model is clearly not matching what GW made and must be modelled for advantage:

pretre wrote:

Therion wrote: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.

So anytime you convert a model that doesn't look exactly like the official model, you have MFA? Good to know.

You didn't know this before? How long have you played this game again? I can give you some ground rules: Models are put on the bases they are supplied with. Sponsons, guns and turrets are attached to the points in vehicles where they're supposed to. Same goes for access hatches and doors. If you want to have a special looking model, it still has to play like a normal model. Likewise you're not allowed to have your Vendettas attached on their flying bases with their noses pointing towards the ground so they can fit on the table with a 6" move. You have to attach them like they're supposed to. Finally, now that there's a clear distinction on what a power axe and a power sword does, models have what their GW models have. You can't convert your own special Commander Dante with a different weapon just because you don't like the rules of the official one. You can house rule all you want in your home games but don't come to an internet forum preaching that you're not modelling for advantage when you're doing exactly that. In other words you're cheating.

This model is clearly not matching what GW made and must be modelled for advantage:

That is an old model that I used when GW didn't make Thunderwolves. It's not an official model anymore, but I would be allowed to use it because I'd use the rules that the official model has. Don't be dense. You can make your custom DCA models with axes, but during the game they'll count as swords.

Oh and IZ:


Non-stock repressor. That dozer blade and model clearly change the LOS profile. I'm gonna have to go with MFA.

Slackermagee wrote:Holy Balls. Its not like the axe strikes at initiative thus making it a no-brainer between it and the sword.

You get two options when you pay for a power weapon
>Initiative of the model, AP3, bonus for two weapons
>I1, models strength +1, AP2, bonus for two weapons (and get murdered by the sword in a challenge before you get to do diddly squat, hence the 'option' to model an axe)

and finally, pay an extra 10 points on average for an I1 weapon that doubles strength and makes you AP2.

You can play either the axe or the sword. If I see a sword and you swing into termies claiming its an axe... no. If you model an axe and swing into my sword wielding sergeant who duels you claiming you too have a sword... no.

Are we seeing the fine points of GW giving ALL players an option without making it a codex entry style option?

Please?

Are you all there yet?

In this case, it is not an issue of him having one or the other. He wants both a sword and an axe on DCAs to gain unique benefits/advantages that would only be available to a character who sacrificed buying another piece of wargear in most cases. With that in mind, I don't see as many HQs able to take 'two power weapons' as separate options outside of Black Templars who still use the armory.

With that in mind, there are not many units that can take two power weapons out there or that ship with 2 power weapons equipped.

The fact that someone is trying to have both the axe and the sword on a normal unit, in a situation that could only occur for ICs mostly..... that is MFA.

This isn't twin lightning claws on your commander, this isn't a powerfist or thunderhammer and a sword on your commander (HQ/IC) unit.

This is swapping 1 of 2 weapons, to have the advantage of having BOTH options available within a single unit on every single model. If he was just swapping some guys from swords to axes, it would not be an issue.

pretre wrote:
Oh and IZ:


Non-stock repressor. That dozer blade and model clearly change the LOS profile. I'm gonna have to go with MFA.

I think you've run out steam, so now you've just attacked Therion and I with points that do not fit with what is being made here.

If I made an immolator armed with a heavy flamer and a heavy bolter.. that is MFA.

In both cases, what you just linked; were conversions. Sorry that you are so butthurt about being wrong.

Fact is, modelling your DCA to have a sword AND an axe is modelling for advantage. You showing THerion and I's conversions and trying to insult us/say modelling for advantage says one thing: You lost, you know it and now you're grasping at desperate straws to try and form some kind of argument but all you can do is link some photos and go OMG LOOK MFA when it clearly is not in either case. Also, GW makes no model for the Repressor. But to refute your point:

#1. The Line of Sight profile of this vehicle is unchanged, the top hatch of the repressor from FW counts as the turret, thus giving no Line of Sight; either way, my repressor is within 1mm height of the FW model.

#2. The rhino has in no way been shortened or made smaller in any way.

#3. The Dozer blade provides no cover or advantages in terms of Line of Sight.

#4. What you have pointed out and shown here, is what I have called over and over modelling for aesthetic or modelling for looks or conversion. There is no advantage of versatlity or bonus.. benefit.. advantage provided by this vehicle in regards to the normal unit.


Let me fix this example for you:

Had you just linked an immolator with a heavy flamer/heavy bolter turret with 1 of each gun instead of two of the same twin-linked, you would have had a legitimate point; in the same vein as using DCAs with a sword and an axe because you can.

According to this Power Weapon rule, my Lychguard can have 'Hyperphase Axes', even though it is called a Hyperphase Sword; all I'd have to do is convert it to look like a Axe instead of a sword.

I find it contradicting itself, but according to the Power Weapon rules as of this moment, that is legal.

My local gaming companions agreed. I personally find it kind of silly; but it is legal.

If it were intended for them to have the other options, I suppose they would have included them in the Lychguard kit; I dunno, I'll abide by the rule as it stands until it is FAQ'd by 'ol GW.

Therion wrote:You didn't know this before? How long have you played this game again? I can give you some ground rules: Models are put on the bases they are supplied with. Sponsons, guns and turrets are attached to the points in vehicles where they're supposed to. Same goes for access hatches and doors. If you want to have a special looking model, it still has to play like a normal model. Likewise you're not allowed to have your Vendettas attached on their flying bases with their noses pointing towards the ground so they can fit on the table with a 6" move. You have to attach them like they're supposed to. Finally, now that there's a clear distinction on what a power axe and a power sword does, models have what their GW models have. You can't convert your own special Commander Dante with a different weapon just because you don't like the rules of the official one. You can house rule all you want in your home games but don't come to an internet forum preaching that you're not modelling for advantage when you're doing exactly that. In other words you're cheating.

Wow. Okay then. So anytime I convert something to take advantage of a completely legal rule (different kinds of power weapons). I am cheating. Good to know.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

IdentifyZero wrote:With that in mind, there are not many units that can take two power weapons out there or that ship with 2 power weapons equipped.

The fact that someone is trying to have both the axe and the sword on a normal unit, in a situation that could only occur for ICs mostly..... that is MFA.

This is swapping 1 of 2 weapons, to have the advantage of having BOTH options available within a single unit on every single model. If he was just swapping some guys from swords to axes, it would not be an issue.

As it is perfectly legal and your dispute seems to be that you don't like that it happens, I really don't have any other problems with it. Oh noes! I took a legal option. You don't like it, so apply the pejorative MFA to it to try to shame me. GJ!

I am cheating. Good to know.

You're welcome.

Therion wrote:

I am cheating. Good to know.

You're welcome.

Also, you might not want to field that TWC lord. He's not the exact size profile as an actual model. That would be MFA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Way to only quote one part of the post to make your point though. Here, let me do it.

Therion wrote:You can't convert your own special Commander Dante with a different weapon just because you don't like the rules of the official one.

That depends. Does his entry specifically say 'axe' or 'sword' or whatever, or does it just say 'power weapon.' If it is the latter, then yes, of course he can swap his weapon. But I vaguely recall his entry is specific.

In other words you're cheating.

Holy hell, not even IZ went that far.

You can make your custom DCA models with axes, but during the game they'll count as swords.

This is not what the rules says. Sorry dude. DCA have 'power weapons' not 'power swords'

Therion wrote:I am cheating. Good to know.

I just had to forget to quote the extra quote marks.

Also, you might not want to field that TWC lord. He's not the exact size profile as an actual model. That would be MFA.

He is pretty much the exact same size, but if anyone would have a problem with it, in the case of for example my model being smaller and because of a one or two millimeter difference in size being impossible to target from behind a building, I'd allow my model to be shot as per the official model.

DCA have 'power weapons' not 'power swords'

Please take the MFA discussion elsewhere. Thanks!

Manchu wrote:Please take the MFA discussion elsewhere. Thanks!

There's a nice discussion about this point here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/459398.page

/MFA posts deleted.

One more (and last) time: start a thread somewhere else about MFA. Thanks.

sorry only just read about the MFA after I posted

So what does everyone think about the changes to the Black Templar FAQ? Specifically that we are forced to use Drop Pod Assault now?

Mantle wrote:sorry only just read about the MFA after I posted

Also sorry, and said I was, but it disappeared. So I'm saying it again.

I may be misunderstanding, but didn't that just bring BT in line with the other codexes that have DPA?

Mantle wrote:sorry only just read about the MFA after I posted

Sorry same excuse.

Back on topic!

@Pretre Yes but some BT players actually liked there version. . . why I do not know. . . I do know however that as a BA player DPA is a pretty good Idea. . .

To the guy commenting on Orks weathering the storm of three editions, I agree. I'm happy to see they weren't made unplayable.

Rule Number One: Be Polite (including no personal attacks)

Rule Number Two: Stay On-Topic

Please follow our rules!

Thanks ~Manchu

My bad. Sorry.

pretre wrote:I may be misunderstanding, but didn't that just bring BT in line with the other codexes that have DPA?

Yes, without all the other funky toys like locator beacons etc.. I'm sure it will all be taken care of in the WD Codex we will get! (joking).

Lysenis wrote:

Mantle wrote:sorry only just read about the MFA after I posted

Sorry same excuse.

Back on topic!

@Pretre Yes but some BT players actually liked there version. . . why I do not know. . . I do know however that as a BA player DPA is a pretty good Idea. . .

I loved my version all throughout 5th. It actually provides a very good means of countering people who A) Plan on 1/2 your pods coming down turn 1 and B) Makes me laugh when people reserve to deal with my drop pods.

The other plus is, with some great rolls (this is luck based, but so is every aspect of 40k) you can potentially have every drop pod come in a single turn... Combine this with say, the new ally rules and use a proteus to re-roll reserves for example or damocles rhino + an allied IG detachment with master of the fleet, turn 2 templars coming in with every drop pod would have been VERY possible. xD

As it stands, it was a very fun when it did work out even under the old rules. More times then not since 4th edition, I have gotten almost 6-8 pods on turn 2.... I tend to run around 11 in my templars.

Message removed.

IdentifyZero wrote:

pretre wrote:I may be misunderstanding, but didn't that just bring BT in line with the other codexes that have DPA?

Yes, without all the other funky toys like locator beacons etc.. I'm sure it will all be taken care of in the WD Codex we will get! (joking).

Lysenis wrote:

Mantle wrote:sorry only just read about the MFA after I posted

Sorry same excuse.

Back on topic!

@Pretre Yes but some BT players actually liked there version. . . why I do not know. . . I do know however that as a BA player DPA is a pretty good Idea. . .

I loved my version all throughout 5th. It actually provides a very good means of countering people who A) Plan on 1/2 your pods coming down turn 1 and B) Makes me laugh when people reserve to deal with my drop pods.

The other plus is, with some great rolls (this is luck based, but so is every aspect of 40k) you can potentially have every drop pod come in a single turn... Combine this with say, the new ally rules and use a proteus to re-roll reserves for example or damocles rhino + an allied IG detachment with master of the fleet, turn 2 templars coming in with every drop pod would have been VERY possible. xD

As it stands, it was a very fun when it did work out even under the old rules. More times then not since 4th edition, I have gotten almost 6-8 pods on turn 2.... I tend to run around 11 in my templars.

Issue is now that if you reserve everything of have an army that is completely in reserves and the full turn ends you lose. . . would suck right!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Agamemnon2 wrote:You know, arguments like the power weapon can of worms are a great justification for banning conversions altogether. Privateer Press is onto something, I feel.

Then I quit. SImple, I love this game not or the rules, not for the game it self but for the ability to make and kit-bash what I want. I know MANY people that feel the same as I do. This game has the idea of it being a big fething universe so there multiple possibilities.