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.

@Jidmah

And I don't even know if axes are better than swords.

It grants units with "power weapons" more flexibilty...

case in point... I could field a full squad of banshee but stick 3 or 4 Axes in there to truly take on 2+ armour saves...

I don't necessarily think it's game breaking, but with 6ed, it just seems odd that this could be done. (I see arguments for both sides...)

I just really wished the Big Choppa was a powa weapon...

Jidmah wrote:Oh, I bet if you'd start selling Death-Cults with Axes as official Citadel models, GW would support that argument rather quickly.

that's a trademark issue, not a fraud issue.

Trademark law exists to protect the owner of IP, fraud to protect a purchaser.

Unless a person could show that they only bought a model because it was misrepresented as a citadel miniature, and wasn't one, and they suffered damages could they show fraud. A conversion of a citadel mini is still a citadel mini, it's just one that's been converted. If I add a bitching spoiler to my Hyundai, it's still a Hyundai when I sell it.

IdentifyZero wrote:

pretre wrote:

Jidmah wrote:

pretre wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Replacing a model clearly using a sword (even in its fluff) with an axe is changing the model to gain an advantage. GW is not telling you to use whichever weapon you want. GW is telling you to look at the model to figure out which weapon it has. It clearly has a sword.

I converted my DCA from wyches. They do not clearly have swords. They clearly have a variety of weapons which I now need to classify as the different types of PW. That's perfectly legal.

Just like my orks don't get meltas from being converted from marines, your death cult assasins don't get power axes from being converted from witches.

That's because meltas aren't a legal choice for orks. Axes are for DCA.

pretre wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:even if it seems like GW didn't intend people to be throwing axes, lances and mauls on them.

Why then did they make that an option? The rules seem to disagree with you.

Please quote the exact rule allowing you to freely choose which weapons you can equip. And please don't quote the one telling you to look at models which are made by citadel. Because "model" is defined in the very first sentence of the rules, excluding anything custom-built.

That is the one. I used legal citadel models to make my wyches in 5th ed.


Why are they suddenly illegal when the rules say to look at their weapons and determine what kind of PW they have? The rules don't say 'If your model doesn't have the same kind of weapon as the stock model, you need to switch it back'.

Hmm, well, examining this image I see a few major issues:

#1. Some units don't have 2 weapons, failure of WYSIWG.

#2. Some units have options here that are not even listed in the new power weapons: Like your fist weapon I see on one guys hand.

#3. I think nobody cared about your wyches before either, since we're discussing the swaps on the official GW model and I said several times to you, you were free to arm them any way you like as long as they have the proper weapons you claim. If you WANTED my permission or blessing, you have it. ^.^

The bit that is in bold. One of the "official" models doesn't have two swords so isn't WYSIWYG.

There is no issue with converted models I have 5 crusaders, (two Metal GW ones and 3 conveted ones, each with a power axe) They are used all the same, and not MFA. Just made from componets that went together. Does this mean that I can't use my crusaders?

It all seem completely with in both the rules and the idea that every collection is individual. Don't see an issue. If someone has a cool conversion I am happy to play against it. That is the true thing that should be assessed, is if it is a Good converted model and if the army looks amazing.

Then I can't go into a GW store with my AOBR nobs, because I repositioned their arms?

MFA is one thing on one model. It's being implied that people who MFA are TFGs.

What's wrong on taking the best option for your model if the codex allows it?

The power axe isn't the bee's knees and it doesn't break the game to have a DCA equipped with both. I wouldn't protest just because the "official" models have swords.

Despite weak protests to the contrary, it doesn't matter what the official model has. The rulebook lists what wargear is possible. You take your model and give it whatever legal wargear you want, paying for whatever upgrades you have to, of course. And that's it.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:

Hmm, well, examining this image I see a few major issues:

#1. Some units don't have 2 weapons, failure of WYSIWG.

#2. Some units have options here that are not even listed in the new power weapons: Like your fist weapon I see on one guys hand.

#3. I think nobody cared about your wyches before either, since we're discussing the swaps on the official GW model and I said several times to you, you were free to arm them any way you like as long as they have the proper weapons you claim. If you WANTED my permission or blessing, you have it. ^.^

As someone pointed out earlier, one of the official GW models for a DCA doesn't have two weapons and so fails WYSIWYG.

They were legal models nearly TWENTY YEARS AGO when first introduced. These sculpts are what, 1995?

Destrado wrote:The power axe isn't the bee's knees and it doesn't break the game to have a DCA equipped with both. I wouldn't protest just because the "official" models have swords.

True. DCA, with an axe is still worse than they were in 5th Edition.

IdentifyZero wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:

Hmm, well, examining this image I see a few major issues:

#1. Some units don't have 2 weapons, failure of WYSIWG.

#2. Some units have options here that are not even listed in the new power weapons: Like your fist weapon I see on one guys hand.

#3. I think nobody cared about your wyches before either, since we're discussing the swaps on the official GW model and I said several times to you, you were free to arm them any way you like as long as they have the proper weapons you claim. If you WANTED my permission or blessing, you have it. ^.^

As someone pointed out earlier, one of the official GW models for a DCA doesn't have two weapons and so fails WYSIWYG.

They were legal models nearly TWENTY YEARS AGO when first introduced. These sculpts are what, 1995?

So? I fail to see how the age of a model matters with regards to the discussion at hand. That model is not WYSIWYG whereas a converted model armed with a Power Sword and a Power Axe is.

Isn't MFA a house rule anyway?

They were released after the Inquisitor 54mm models, so I'd say 2004 or later.

kirsanth wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Stop spamming nonsense maybe, and find some rules instead?

I love the dichotomy.

Jidmah wrote:So I'm allowed to use stompas as warbosses now?

I mean, obviously I'm allowed to switch models however I want, right?

It's even sold by GW!

But, sure, you even got the "as" of "counts as" right.

Sure, it counts as warboss, no intentions of bringing a super-heavy to a regular game, of course.

It's awesome how many models can fight it in combat though. And its mega-gatler(counts as Shoota, of course) will always have LoS, too.

Polonius wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Oh, I bet if you'd start selling Death-Cults with Axes as official Citadel models, GW would support that argument rather quickly.

that's a trademark issue, not a fraud issue.

Trademark law exists to protect the owner of IP, fraud to protect a purchaser.

Unless a person could show that they only bought a model because it was misrepresented as a citadel miniature, and wasn't one, and they suffered damages could they show fraud. A conversion of a citadel mini is still a citadel mini, it's just one that's been converted. If I add a bitching spoiler to my Hyundai, it's still a Hyundai when I sell it.

Well, you're the lawyer, I'm a programmer.

Changing the weapon is a major change in function. If you change the engine of your Hyundai to something else, it's no longer the car you bought.

IdentifyZero wrote:They were legal models nearly TWENTY YEARS AGO when first introduced. These sculpts are what, 1995?

Actually, they weren't legal when they came out either, as the original DCA had a PW and a CCW. And they came out in 2004.

BarBoBot wrote:In the instance of death cult assassins, does their wargear list them as having 2 power weapons? ( don't have that dex)

If so could a player using them model 1 sword and 1 axe and then choose which to use before they strike?

I would assume so. It wouldn't be as lame if you had to attack x times with each specific weapon but I do not think you do. It's not the same as maybe have 4 banshees out of ten with axes, so you can have a multi purpose unit..

The DCA thing effectively allows you x attacks all with a profile you select before you swing. Is it legal, sure. Is it lame? Kindve?

I agree it's a free buff for the DCA's but I do think it's allowed. I'll scoff at it and frown at you, but I won't be a child and refuse to play and I certainly won't call you a cheater.

Lastly I think that Therion (as usual) and IZ (to a much lesser extent) have been rude, insulting, incredulous, and outright petty in their stance. It reeks of a child throwing a tantrum about fairness. While I agree with them at least on the issue of the DCA equipping 2 varying weapons (mostly with IZ I suspect, that it's allowed but kindve dirty). I do not agree with Therions broad strokes of claiming that your only options are what comes on the sprue. Sucks to be have any model whose upgrades don't come on their orginal sprues. I suppose that a GK Dread should never ever model TL Autocannons.. they don't come in the box you know. Clearly MFA

IdentifyZero wrote:I am not denying them the chance to swap their SWORDS for AXES. I am saying swapping 1 sword for an axe and having a sword and an axe is the issue.

Yes, but why is it an issue? The rules consider them equal. If every instance of a power weapon can be either a sword or an axe, then how many weapons a model has and which of them it chooses to wield is completely open.


Just hypothetically, if GW tomorrow releases a DCA plastic kit that includes swords, axes and mauls, will it still (in your opinion) be legal to equip them only with two of the same weapon?

Because, as you claimed with the Tactical sergeant thing, apparently, it's legal to make use of a unit's options, even if they're not provided with the model, so long as GW makes the model with weapons?

Jidmah wrote:If you change the engine of your Hyundai to something else, it's no longer the car you bought.

Once you start a car it's no longer the car you bought. It's still a Hynudai. It's just been modified.

You're trying to draw an arbitrary line with no basis.
If I use 2 blobs of play-doh with 2 swords stuck in them for counts-as DCAs - they're WYSIWYG and the right height, so it's cool?
But if I use 2 axes instead it's suddenly bad and I should feel bad.

Joe Mama wrote:

Destrado wrote:The power axe isn't the bee's knees and it doesn't break the game to have a DCA equipped with both. I wouldn't protest just because the "official" models have swords.

True. DCA, with an axe is still worse than they were in 5th Edition.

If you're changing a model solely for game advantage, you're modeling for advantage.

If you equip even a single axe to a DCA, all the MFA shenanigans are perfectly legal to use against you. Including modeling all special weapons on poles and their users with periscopes.

Jidmah wrote:If you're changing a model solely for game advantage, you're modeling for advantage.

Page reference?

I am really confused by this rhetoric,

5th edition i could have 2 power weapons/1 power weapon, 1 powerfist/1 power weapon, 1 thunderhammer/ on my Death company? (modeling for advantage??)

Rules even stated that you had to choose between which weapon you were using.

Now i can give my CCS Commander 2 plasma pistols (modeling for advantage??)

So if i take differnet weapons I am MFA??? what is going on here??

Ok so putting an Axe on a DCA is the EXACT same thing as using a Stompa for a warboss?

Just curious, but what was your stance on TWC before the model came out? Did you let people use their conversion models? Or were you TFG?

RegulusBlack wrote:I am really confused by this rhetoric

The point seems to be that if your models USED to have 2 different weapons you are cool. If you change them now, you are cheating.

Slackermagee's 'So you want to grab one of those cool AP2 weapons' guide for people who can't read the rules or the FAQ:

Did the FAQ/Errata replace power [sword/maul/axe] with 'power weapon' in your relevant unit entry? If yes, proceed below. If no, then, well... no. Stop. You may not replace the weapon with an axe/sword/maul if the (FAQ'd) unit entry lacks generic power weapons.

Have you marked down which type of power weapon the model is using in the list you are playing? If yes, proceed below. If no, then go back and write it down. No backsies.

Have you modeled the correct type (or something approximating the right type while deviating from what originally came on the model) of power weapon on the model? If yes, congratulations! You get to use that model without fear of reprisal. If no, Booooo! Lazy player, you can probably get away with using it if your opponent is nice but you have deigned not to put the effort in. Boooo!

Thunderfrog wrote:I agree it's a free buff for the DCA's but I do think it's allowed.

Like I said earlier, DCA, even with an axe, are still nerfed compared to 5th edition. But this is actually irrelevant because buff or nerf, it is legal. GW could decide to FAQ it the other way, but that'd be a rules change.

kirsanth wrote:

Jidmah wrote:If you're changing a model solely for game advantage, you're modeling for advantage.

Page reference?

Page 4.

So how about my stompa-warboss? It's just as legal as using axes on DCA, right?

Jidmah wrote:If you're changing a model solely for game advantage, you're modeling for advantage.

I am changing WARGEAR for an advantage. Welcome to 6th edition, where 'power weapon' is a category, giving us options.

If you equip even a single axe to a DCA, all the MFA shenanigans are perfectly legal to use against you. Including modeling all special weapons on poles and their users with periscopes.

Did I just get punk'd? Legally taking a weapon a model can take is equivalent to have a special weapon on a stick 15 inches above the base? Come on now dude. Let's get real here.

Savageconvoy wrote:Ok so putting an Axe on a DCA is the EXACT same thing as using a Stompa for a warboss?

Just curious, but what was your stance on TWC before the model came out? Did you let people use their conversion models? Or were you TFG?

There is a difference building a model because it doesn't exist, and using a different model than the existing one because want an in-game advantage.

insaniak wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:I am not denying them the chance to swap their SWORDS for AXES. I am saying swapping 1 sword for an axe and having a sword and an axe is the issue.

Yes, but why is it an issue? The rules consider them equal. If every instance of a power weapon can be either a sword or an axe, then how many weapons a model has and which of them it chooses to wield is completely open.


Just hypothetically, if GW tomorrow releases a DCA plastic kit that includes swords, axes and mauls, will it still (in your opinion) be legal to equip them only with two of the same weapon?

Also note that GW would only put one of each type of weapon on the sprue so you'd have to use two different types unless you bought two kits.

Jidmah wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

Jidmah wrote:If you're changing a model solely for game advantage, you're modeling for advantage.

Page reference?

Page 4.

So how about my stompa-warboss? It's just as legal as using axes on DCA, right?

Since you're strawmaning - sure.
Not that I'd agree to that game, but it's not illegal.

Jidmah wrote:There is a difference building a model because it doesn't exist, and using a different model than the existing one because want in-game an advantage.

No there is not. You are being obtuse.
There is not a model for the legal codex option.
So building one is legal.

This is 0% different than tervigons until recently or any other option that is listed in a codex without the option being on a sprue.

Editing to add:
Converting a model to match a legal codex option is more legal than saying MFA is not legal.

By the way, I love the reductio ad absurdum arguments. It's like it's a newsgroup in 1998.

Using a stompa as a warboss is classic MFA, because the model in question gains advantages based solely on how the model is built. It's physical dimiensions, proportions, etc. What's more, it violates the idea that conversions and counts-as stay close to the proportions of the original model.

The issue here isn't if adding a power ax is modelling for advantage. The issues is "does the DCA have the option to take a power ax." If it does, than converting one to an ax is no more MFA than converting your captain to have an ax. If it does not, than adding a power ax is no more legal than adding a plasma cannon or storm shield.

The only slight contradiction I see with the current Power Weapon rule and freely choosing what you want in instances of the different types of power weapons is Lychguard.

They have the 'Hyperphase Sword', which, in all respects, is a sword; well, is clearly states it is a 'Power Weapon', not a 'Power Sword'.

Bloodletters were FAQ'd to be amended to Power Swords, yet Lychguard weren't.

So Hyperphase Axes...?