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.

nkelsch wrote:
If I go to a tourney... then it is 'out of my hands' as I don't set the WYSIWYG standard. Some tourneys have allowed 'proxies' due to 6th being new and it is too soon for people to smash their models with a hammer and paint up for new tourneys. Others are requiring strict WYSIWYG.

Thank you for giving me someone else's opinion when I asked you for yours.

nkelsch wrote:
If I go to a tourney... then it is 'out of my hands' as I don't set the WYSIWYG standard. Some tourneys have allowed 'proxies' due to 6th being new and it is too soon for people to smash their models with a hammer and paint up for new tourneys. Others are requiring strict WYSIWYG.

Usually if you proxy, it would be 'all my swords are axes' in which case that banner guy COULD be an axe. If the TO is strict, then it is a sword. WYSIWYG doesn't change the rules in the book, none of which support functional Mauls/Lances for Glaives.

@Jstncloud

Those are cool... and just like other explicitly defined options, you can 'counts as' them as something else by saying 'all these pole arms are SWORDS' since the model has a weapon which doesn't fit the current rules. We have all been doing this for many editions. For most people, as long as the X=Y is consistent, they are cool with it.

Personally, I recommended people wait until the 1.1FAQ before smashing models with a hammer to make axe harlequins and such... because we all knew this would happen :( If you already did it... then work within 'counts as' and make all your switches consistent and people will be fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jstncloud wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Well I would happily let you call them axes

Lances are +1 str ap 3, on the charge, then they revert to basic Str and AP 4, they are hardly super powerful and if I fail to win the assault the next round I am considerably less threatening, seems balancing to me.

Balance means nothing... just because some people feel all 4 power weapons are always equal doesn't mean that the restrictions placed by GW are not there. I am sure some people feel any power weapon should be every power weapon but GW has removed that from a large number of weapons.

This is typically what my group has been doing, 5th ed there was no difference between the axes and swords and rather than break my axe sanguinary guard (not in the photo) they let me count that whole squad as swords.

Thanks for the comments, didn't realize my modeling would allow them to qualify for 'count as' from the book, thanks again for the catch.

Honestly, I don't see why anyone would take Glaive Encarmines as axes any more. The only thing a power axe has over a power fist is that you can still get an additional attack with it, but the Glaives are two-handed which means no extra attack anyways. Especially considering how cheap a fist is for SG, no more axes for me. (rhyme not intended)

In regards to whether or not Glaives can be Lances or Mauls, I would allow it in a friendly game but there really isn't any way to support the argument IMO.

You know what? I'm going to do what GW told me I can do and give The Sanguinor a Maul and use him at tournament. Apparently the best way to do what you want is not to ask question and only defend yourself when someone questions it. However, if and when they do question it, make fun of them for not knowing it all along. Apparently, humiliation is the only way to make logic work, either for me or for you.

I guess I'll show you when the next FAQ comes out, mark my words. I am done on this topic, please lock thread.

Orblivion wrote:
Honestly, I don't see why anyone would take Glaive Encarmines as axes any more. The only thing a power axe has over a power fist is that you can still get an additional attack with it, but the Glaives are two-handed which means no extra attack anyways. Especially considering how cheap a fist is for SG, no more axes for me. (rhyme not intended)

In regards to whether or not Glaives can be Lances or Mauls, I would allow it in a friendly game but there really isn't any way to support the argument IMO.

I'd still take axes; on all of them. 50 points cheaper than splurging for power fists. Still S6 on the charge thanks to the priest. With 5 re-rolls to hit, they're better than the fist.
-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:

Orblivion wrote:
Honestly, I don't see why anyone would take Glaive Encarmines as axes any more. The only thing a power axe has over a power fist is that you can still get an additional attack with it, but the Glaives are two-handed which means no extra attack anyways. Especially considering how cheap a fist is for SG, no more axes for me. (rhyme not intended)

In regards to whether or not Glaives can be Lances or Mauls, I would allow it in a friendly game but there really isn't any way to support the argument IMO.

I'd still take axes; on all of them. 50 points cheaper than splurging for power fists. Still S6 on the charge thanks to the priest. With 5 re-rolls to hit, they're better than the fist.
-Matt

While I see the point, I see the other guy's point as well. If you are at initiative 1 you might as well be there for a better reason than AP 2 str+1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orblivion wrote:
Honestly, I don't see why anyone would take Glaive Encarmines as axes any more. The only thing a power axe has over a power fist is that you can still get an additional attack with it, but the Glaives are two-handed which means no extra attack anyways. Especially considering how cheap a fist is for SG, no more axes for me. (rhyme not intended)

In regards to whether or not Glaives can be Lances or Mauls, I would allow it in a friendly game but there really isn't any way to support the argument IMO.

They replaced all instances or power sword with power weapon, allowing all models to be modeled with the weapon of choice (assuming it wasn't a weapon with a specified cost such as power fists and so forth).

There is indeed an argument to be made. You might say "Well the only weapons that come in the Sanguinary Guard kit at Swords and Axes ergo they can only have Swords and Axes." (fists as well). However GW supplies more kits that lack 'all' upgrades than ones that include 'all' upgrades. So pre-FAQ they were just two-handed master crafted power weapons which leaves one able to model as they desire.

If anyone holds onto the "Yadda Yadda it isn't in the kit" bit then let me go ahead and retire my Vendettas who are only sporting las cannons because of conversions/FW purchases.

Dandruff wrote:
You know what? I'm going to do what GW told me I can do and give The Sanguinor a Maul and use him at tournament. Apparently the best way to do what you want is not to ask question and only defend yourself when someone questions it. However, if and when they do question it, make fun of them for not knowing it all along. Apparently, humiliation is the only way to make logic work, either for me or for you.

I guess I'll show you when the next FAQ comes out, mark my words. I am done on this topic, please lock thread.

Why can't you accept your wrong? The FAQ, states clearly which weapons you have and can use what profiles they are given. The FAQ even states they have special rules. So they can never be one of the power weapon profiles.

They are basicly weapons outside the "power weapon" and "unsual power weapon" sections, they are unique like some of the other characters weapon.

BUT the main question is CAN I use a AXE on my sanguinor, I say I can because he has a Glaive Encarmine which can be a sword or axe, you can choose which to equipe you model with since the rules only say Glaive Encarmine and the model has a sword but you can always not use that model.

Just because a SM libby model comes with a combi bolt pistol you do not have only that option.

So he can have a axe if he wants.

 Jstncloud wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:

Orblivion wrote:
Honestly, I don't see why anyone would take Glaive Encarmines as axes any more. The only thing a power axe has over a power fist is that you can still get an additional attack with it, but the Glaives are two-handed which means no extra attack anyways. Especially considering how cheap a fist is for SG, no more axes for me. (rhyme not intended)

In regards to whether or not Glaives can be Lances or Mauls, I would allow it in a friendly game but there really isn't any way to support the argument IMO.

I'd still take axes; on all of them. 50 points cheaper than splurging for power fists. Still S6 on the charge thanks to the priest. With 5 re-rolls to hit, they're better than the fist.
-Matt

While I see the point, I see the other guy's point as well. If you are at initiative 1 you might as well be there for a better reason than AP 2 str+1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orblivion wrote:
Honestly, I don't see why anyone would take Glaive Encarmines as axes any more. The only thing a power axe has over a power fist is that you can still get an additional attack with it, but the Glaives are two-handed which means no extra attack anyways. Especially considering how cheap a fist is for SG, no more axes for me. (rhyme not intended)

In regards to whether or not Glaives can be Lances or Mauls, I would allow it in a friendly game but there really isn't any way to support the argument IMO.

They replaced all instances or power sword with power weapon, allowing all models to be modeled with the weapon of choice (assuming it wasn't a weapon with a specified cost such as power fists and so forth).

There is indeed an argument to be made. You might say "Well the only weapons that come in the Sanguinary Guard kit at Swords and Axes ergo they can only have Swords and Axes." (fists as well). However GW supplies more kits that lack 'all' upgrades than ones that include 'all' upgrades. So pre-FAQ they were just two-handed master crafted power weapons which leaves one able to model as they desire.

If anyone holds onto the "Yadda Yadda it isn't in the kit" bit then let me go ahead and retire my Vendettas who are only sporting las cannons because of conversions/FW purchases.

It has nothing to do with what is in the kit, it has to do with only swords and axes being described as the options for Glaives in the FAQ. Like I said, it wouldn't bother me in the least if somebody wanted to bring lances or mauls, but the FAQ is very clear on this matter.

Dandruff wrote:
You know what? I'm going to do what GW told me I can do and give The Sanguinor a Maul and use him at tournament. Apparently the best way to do what you want is not to ask question and only defend yourself when someone questions it. However, if and when they do question it, make fun of them for not knowing it all along. Apparently, humiliation is the only way to make logic work, either for me or for you.

I guess I'll show you when the next FAQ comes out, mark my words. I am done on this topic, please lock thread.

Interesting. All well run tourneys follow GW FAQ. So you intend to go to an event with the explicit intention to break the rules and play dumb until called on purposefully ignoring the rules and then argue that "GW redshirt said I can" and "it doesn't say I can't" both of which are dismissed as never a valid position to argue from.

Good luck with that. Shows you are a poor sport explicitly intending to show up to a tourney to break the rules. Besides, all well run tourneys will have event re-FAQ this issue to confirm axes and swords by time you show up. TOs make the rules regardless how you argue it. Follow the rules of the TO or do everyone a favor and stay home.

Please lock my thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marthike wrote:
Why can't you accept your wrong? The FAQ, states clearly which weapons you have and can use what profiles they are given. The FAQ even states they have special rules. So they can never be one of the power weapon profiles.

They are basicly weapons outside the "power weapon" and "unsual power weapon" sections, they are unique like some of the other characters weapon.

BUT the main question is CAN I use a AXE on my sanguinor, I say I can because he has a Glaive Encarmine which can be a sword or axe, you can choose which to equipe you model with since the rules only say Glaive Encarmine and the model has a sword but you can always not use that model.

Just because a SM libby model comes with a combi bolt pistol you do not have only that option.

So he can have a axe if he wants.

Yes, The Sanguinor can have a sword, axe, maul, or lance. This is what GW told me was legal, this is what I will do. If you don't like it, call GW and post their reply here as well. I dare you. I don't think you have the balls to do so. No one else seems to think that GW has any validity, yet we all play their game. You won't believe them, you won't believe me, but you'll believe the book the books they put out. Again, this is over, please lock thread.

Please do lock this thread it's now time to talk out of your ass it appears.

GW isn't a monolithic entity, not every redshirt or blueshirt(in my local anyway) knows the full of the rules let alone can speak on behalf of the design team. Calling GW is like calling tech support in any company and asking stupid questions they just fob you off. They might be polite but they just get you to go away asap.

Dandruff wrote:

Yes, The Sanguinor can have a sword, axe, maul, or lance. This is what GW told me was legal, this is what I will do. If you don't like it, call GW and post their reply here as well. I dare you. I don't think you have the balls to do so. No one else seems to think that GW has any validity, yet we all play their game. You won't believe them, you won't believe me, but you'll believe the book the books they put out. Again, this is over, please lock thread.

GW didn't tell you that. GW only modifies the game via FAQs. GW is not a 'person' therefor you are incapable of 'speaking with GW' and having 'GW' give you an answer. You might as well say 'santa claus is real, I dare you to call him and get proof he's not because when I talked to him, he said he was real.'

The FAQ says you can't and that is all we listen to. Most people will simply use 'counts as' rules for this unit and move on. You plan to wage a ground war against the entire community with 'sit in' like tactics by showing up to events, ignoring the FAQ, screaming about 'GW said I could via phonecall' and playing FAQs wrong until someone calls you on it which disrupts events and causes inconvenience to everyone else.

Basically you plan to make it work via a temper-tantrum and hope people will just give in opposed to argue with you. The truth is every TO anywhere will follow the FAQ and all someone will have to do is say 'judge, he wrote mace on his army list and that is an invalid option.' and you will be forced to pick a sword or an axe and continue with the game, and you will either follow the TO's direction or explode in a rage volcano saying 'GEE DUB SAID I COULD!' while you pound your fists on the ground.

I suspect you will simply listen to the TO and play the game since that is what people do at tourneys... listen to the TO and accept rulings you may personally disagree with.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Please do lock this thread it's now time to talk out of your ass it appears.

GW isn't a monolithic entity, not every redshirt or blueshirt(in my local anyway) knows the full of the rules let alone can speak on behalf of the design team. Calling GW is like calling tech support in any company and asking stupid questions they just fob you off. They might be polite but they just get you to go away asap.

I am not claiming that they are. I had a question. I called in. I got an answer. I provided the answer. You don't/won't believe me or the people who put out the damned game in the first place. CAN NOTHING SATISFY YOU EFFING PEOPLE? Call them, just flipping call them. Lock thread.

I've also seen GW emails clarifying that Dante's axe is indeed unusual and can strike at initiative. Big surprise, the FAQ nixed that as well. The FAQs are meant as edits for the BRB and codices. You always, ALWAYS, follow the BRB & codices over any random GW employee.

nkelsch wrote:
GW didn't tell you that. GW only modifies the game via FAQs. GW is not a 'person' therefor you are incapable of 'speaking with GW' and having 'GW' give you an answer. You might as well say 'santa claus is real, I dare you to call him and get proof he's not because when I talked to him, he said he was real.'

The FAQ says you can't and that is all we listen to. Most people will simply use 'counts as' rules for this unit and move on. You plan to wage a ground war against the entire community with 'sit in' like tactics by showing up to events, ignoring the FAQ, screaming about 'GW said I could via phonecall' and playing FAQs wrong until someone calls you on it which disrupts events and causes inconvenience to everyone else.

Basically you plan to make it work via a temper-tantrum and hope people will just give in opposed to argue with you. The truth is every TO anywhere will follow the FAQ and all someone will have to do is say 'judge, he wrote mace on his army list and that is an invalid option.' and you will be forced to pick a sword or an axe and continue with the game, and you will either follow the TO's direction or explode in a rage volcano saying 'GEE DUB SAID I COULD!' while you pound your fists on the ground.

I suspect you will simply listen to the TO and play the game since that is what people do at tourneys... listen to the TO and accept rulings you may personally disagree with.

GW didn't tell me that? Who the flip did I talk to yesterday then? You better call TAPS because we got some paranormal activity going on. Ghosts are answering GW's customer service. You're not going to believe me until it's in god damed writing, which I already believe it is and apparently am not entitled to my opinion, or the re-enforcement from the company or person that I called.

FOLLOWS THE RULES FOR TYPES OF POWER WEAPONS AND HAS SPECIAL RULES. THIS GRANTS YOU PERMISSION TO USE ANY I REPEAT ANY OF THE PROFILES PROVIDED.

Did you get all that?

Dandruff wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
GW didn't tell you that. GW only modifies the game via FAQs. GW is not a 'person' therefor you are incapable of 'speaking with GW' and having 'GW' give you an answer. You might as well say 'santa claus is real, I dare you to call him and get proof he's not because when I talked to him, he said he was real.'

The FAQ says you can't and that is all we listen to. Most people will simply use 'counts as' rules for this unit and move on. You plan to wage a ground war against the entire community with 'sit in' like tactics by showing up to events, ignoring the FAQ, screaming about 'GW said I could via phonecall' and playing FAQs wrong until someone calls you on it which disrupts events and causes inconvenience to everyone else.

Basically you plan to make it work via a temper-tantrum and hope people will just give in opposed to argue with you. The truth is every TO anywhere will follow the FAQ and all someone will have to do is say 'judge, he wrote mace on his army list and that is an invalid option.' and you will be forced to pick a sword or an axe and continue with the game, and you will either follow the TO's direction or explode in a rage volcano saying 'GEE DUB SAID I COULD!' while you pound your fists on the ground.

I suspect you will simply listen to the TO and play the game since that is what people do at tourneys... listen to the TO and accept rulings you may personally disagree with.

GW didn't tell me that? Who the flip did I talk to yesterday then? You better call TAPS because we got some paranormal activity going on. Ghosts are answering GW's customer service. You're not going to believe me until it's in god damed writing, which I already believe it is and apparently am not entitled to my opinion, or the re-enforcement from the company or person that I called.

FOLLOWS THE RULES FOR TYPES OF POWER WEAPONS AND HAS SPECIAL RULES. THIS GRANTS YOU PERMISSION TO USE ANY I REPEAT ANY OF THE PROFILES PROVIDED.

Did you get all that?

Page number please? Nothing says you may ignore the restriction for 'further special rules' and nothing says you may use ANY of the profiles... only the proviles provided in the FAQ. phonecalls with random people doesn't make rules for 40k. You have made up Rules and then quoted your made up rules with your BOLD words.

What I do see is an FAQ which says the following:
A: Glaive Encarmines follow the rules as described in the Types
of Power Weapon section on page 61 of the Warhammer 40,000
rulebook, but also have the Master-crafted and Two-handed
special rules. They would therefore have the following profiles.
Range S AP Type
Glaive Encarmine - User 3 Melee,
(Sword) Master-crafted,
Two-handed.
Range S AP Type
Glaive Encarmine - +1 2 Melee,
(Axe) Master-crafted,
Two-handed,
Unwieldy.

They provide two profiles and bypass the default rules for power weapons which say power weapons with further special rules may not look at the model to determine the type.

You are ignoring everything and still arguing 'it doesn't say I can't' even though the core rulebook says you can't and the FAQ hasn't given an exceptionf or the core rulebook.

Dandruff wrote:Please lock my thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
. . .

This made me smile.

Dandruff wrote:
THIS GRANTS YOU PERMISSION TO USE ANY I REPEAT ANY OF THE PROFILES PROVIDED.

Sure, pick either one provided.
/shrug

I am saying that YES INDEED it DOES say I can.

Follow this example:
You go to the ice cream store and they have four different flavors; chocolate, vanilla, strawberry, and rocky road. You get to the counter and the waitress asks you "would you like vanilla or strawberry today?" and you can CLEARLY see chocolate and rocky road.

You are going to make fun of my example but you need to see that you are the one limiting yourself by reading it the way they are.

According to you, if they would have asked "Do they follow the rules for Power Mauls/Power Lances?" then they could only be mauls or lances. "They then would have the following profiles" is in reference to the question asked. Oh do I wish they would have explained more of it but other codices say "Replace this weapon with the following profile." NOTHING is being replaced. You are granted permission to follow the "Types of Power Weapons" rule, the exception being that they have special rules. Don't tell me they don't have special rules, they do. You keep telling me you never look to the model, you write it down on a piece of paper, and that is total BULLS--T. The way you represent this is with the EFFING MODEL. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR SKULL. YOU USE THE MODEL TO DETERMINE THE WEAPON TYPE. YOU LOOK TO THE MODEL. HOW EVER THE FLIP YOU WANT TO SAY IT. THE MODEL IS WHAT REPRESENTS THE TYPE OF WEAPON THE GLAIVE IS. NOTHING ELSE, NOT PAPER, NOT WHATS IN YOUR HEAD, NODDA.

Permission is there, try finding it again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You are the one ignoring the rules for Types of Power Weapons. You are limiting the answer only because of the question asked.

I have to know, what does "Types of Power Weapons" mean to you?

To fix your example, the situation we have here is that the ice cream store stopped selling chocolate and rocky road and changed the sign accordingly but forgot to tell the waitress so she is telling everyone that they are both still available.

Pg. 4, Blood Angels FAQ: "Glaive Encarmine follow the rules for Types of Power Weapons as described..."

Pg 61 BRB: "Types of Power Weapons: If a models wargear 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:"

FAQ > BRB You look at the model. FAQ responds to the questions asked, nothing more. The BRB now says you look at the model because it follows the "Types of Power Weapons" rule. You look at the model.

Dandruff wrote:
Pg. 4, Blood Angels FAQ: "Glaive Encarmine follow the rules for Types of Power Weapons as described..."

Pg 61 BRB: "Types of Power Weapons: If a models wargear 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:"

FAQ > BRB You look at the model. FAQ responds to the questions asked, nothing more. The BRB now says you look at the model because it follows the "Types of Power Weapons" rule. You look at the model.

Wrong. Nothing you say follows the rules. FAQ never gives you permission to look at the model, all it does is gives the the ability to choose one of two weapont ypes provided. Youa re stilld enied the right to look at the model due to having further special rules.

The FAQ is granting explicit types of weapons... it is not removing the application of 'no further special rules' or clarifying that master crafted and two handed do not count as special rules.

You never have permission to look at the model to determine the type, the FAQ doesn't change that. Basically since Glaives are 'broken' by RAW, the only way they work is with explicit types FAQed which is what they did. If you ignore the FAQ, then the glaive has further special rules which means you may not look at the model to tell which type of power weapon.

Simply bolding one part of the rule doesn't make the other part go away. Maces and lances can never exist due to the rules... and axes and swords can due to explicit permissionf romt eh FAQ.

You are making up rules and ignoring the RAW with absolutly nothing to support your position other than "GEEDUB said I coulnd" and "It doesn't say I can't look at the model."

neither are valid in a permissive ruleset.

You are ignoring the part in the FAQ that defines the two available profiles for Glaives because it suits your purpose. Permissive ruleset, the two profiles they provide are the only two you can use.

@nkelsch: You absolutely look at the model to determine the weapon, that part hasn't changed in regards to Glaives.

Orblivion wrote:
You are ignoring the part in the FAQ that defines the two available profiles for Glaives because it suits your purpose. Permissive ruleset, the two profiles they provide are the only two you can use.

@nkelsch: You absolutely look at the model to determine the weapon, that part hasn't changed in regards to Glaives.

The only time you can ever look at the model to determine the type is when you have a power weapon with no further special rules.

The FAQ has bypassed the 'look at the model' to provide types explicitly. So while you may choose an axe or a sword, since WYSIWYG is not part of the rules, nothing requires it to be modeled correctly outside of 'social convention.' Hence it is reasonable for someone to say 'all my glaives are axes' but rulebreaking to say 'all my power weapons with no further special rules are maces.

Edit: this is rules, not HIWPI... but when someone wants access to weapon types they are not allowed to have, then we go by RAW. If people are following within the rules for valid weapon types, then most of us will be lenient on proxies depending on the casualness of the game even though the default power weapon rules never give permission to choose a type, simply 'look at the model' which if you assume conversions are allowed, boil down to the same thing. Power weapons with special rules can never be an axe/mace/lance unless explicitly having their type FAQed due to the inability to ever look at the model to determine the type, that is RAW.

Orblivion wrote:

 Jstncloud wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:

Orblivion wrote:
Honestly, I don't see why anyone would take Glaive Encarmines as axes any more. The only thing a power axe has over a power fist is that you can still get an additional attack with it, but the Glaives are two-handed which means no extra attack anyways. Especially considering how cheap a fist is for SG, no more axes for me. (rhyme not intended)

In regards to whether or not Glaives can be Lances or Mauls, I would allow it in a friendly game but there really isn't any way to support the argument IMO.

I'd still take axes; on all of them. 50 points cheaper than splurging for power fists. Still S6 on the charge thanks to the priest. With 5 re-rolls to hit, they're better than the fist.
-Matt

While I see the point, I see the other guy's point as well. If you are at initiative 1 you might as well be there for a better reason than AP 2 str+1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orblivion wrote:
Honestly, I don't see why anyone would take Glaive Encarmines as axes any more. The only thing a power axe has over a power fist is that you can still get an additional attack with it, but the Glaives are two-handed which means no extra attack anyways. Especially considering how cheap a fist is for SG, no more axes for me. (rhyme not intended)

In regards to whether or not Glaives can be Lances or Mauls, I would allow it in a friendly game but there really isn't any way to support the argument IMO.

They replaced all instances or power sword with power weapon, allowing all models to be modeled with the weapon of choice (assuming it wasn't a weapon with a specified cost such as power fists and so forth).

There is indeed an argument to be made. You might say "Well the only weapons that come in the Sanguinary Guard kit at Swords and Axes ergo they can only have Swords and Axes." (fists as well). However GW supplies more kits that lack 'all' upgrades than ones that include 'all' upgrades. So pre-FAQ they were just two-handed master crafted power weapons which leaves one able to model as they desire.

If anyone holds onto the "Yadda Yadda it isn't in the kit" bit then let me go ahead and retire my Vendettas who are only sporting las cannons because of conversions/FW purchases.

It has nothing to do with what is in the kit, it has to do with only swords and axes being described as the options for Glaives in the FAQ. Like I said, it wouldn't bother me in the least if somebody wanted to bring lances or mauls, but the FAQ is very clear on this matter.

I obviously know this 'NOW' pre-FAQ is what I am referring to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:

Dandruff wrote:
Pg. 4, Blood Angels FAQ: "Glaive Encarmine follow the rules for Types of Power Weapons as described..."

Pg 61 BRB: "Types of Power Weapons: If a models wargear 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:"

FAQ > BRB You look at the model. FAQ responds to the questions asked, nothing more. The BRB now says you look at the model because it follows the "Types of Power Weapons" rule. You look at the model.

Wrong. Nothing you say follows the rules. FAQ never gives you permission to look at the model, all it does is gives the the ability to choose one of two weapont ypes provided. Youa re stilld enied the right to look at the model due to having further special rules.

The FAQ is granting explicit types of weapons... it is not removing the application of 'no further special rules' or clarifying that master crafted and two handed do not count as special rules.

You never have permission to look at the model to determine the type, the FAQ doesn't change that. Basically since Glaives are 'broken' by RAW, the only way they work is with explicit types FAQed which is what they did. If you ignore the FAQ, then the glaive has further special rules which means you may not look at the model to tell which type of power weapon.

Simply bolding one part of the rule doesn't make the other part go away. Maces and lances can never exist due to the rules... and axes and swords can due to explicit permissionf romt eh FAQ.

You are making up rules and ignoring the RAW with absolutly nothing to support your position other than "GEEDUB said I coulnd" and "It doesn't say I can't look at the model."

neither are valid in a permissive ruleset.

What gets me is the difference between Universal Special Rules and "Special Rules." Not a good argument 'now' but Astorath's Axe had its 'own special rules' not simply USRs. The Glaives were just Master Crafted Two Handed weapons, USRs, and otherwise followed power weapon rules. If adding Master Crafted to a weapon satisfies 'Unusual Power Weapon' then the whole Grey Knight Codex is basically Unusual Power Weapons, which I believe they are not. (Could be wrong here, but I know you can pay to master craft Paladin weapons therefore bringing up similar issues to that of the Glaive, are USRs the same 'special rules' the BRB is talking about in reference to 'Unusual Power Weapons.')

 Jstncloud wrote:


I obviously know this 'NOW' pre-FAQ is what I am referring to.

Go read the dante thread... Glaives pre-FAQ fell into a black hole where they had 'further special rules' but arguably did not have 'unique CC rules' which meant theyw ere neither power weapons OR unsusual PWs. Which meant the game broke and the weapons had no effects.

Which is why people either felt 'look at the model' was the default or 'unsuual' was the default. NOVA had to have a large table of what allt he weapons explicitly counted as because the rules for PWs are broken and 'look at the model' simply doesn't work for any weapons with special rules.

What gets me is the difference between Universal Special Rules and "Special Rules." Not a good argument 'now' but Astoraths Axe had its 'own special rules' not USRs. The Glaives were just Master Crafted Two Handed weapons, USRs, and otherwise followed power weapon rules. If adding Master Crafted to a weapon satisfies 'Unusual Power Weapon' then the whole Grey Knight Codex is basically Unusual Power Weapons, which I believe they are not. (Could be wrong here, but I know you can pay to master craft Paladin weapons therefore bringing up similar issues to that of the Glaive, are USRs the same 'special rules' the BRB is talking about in reference to 'Unusual Power Weapons.')

The problem is USRs don't exist anymore. We have 'special rules' which we used to know as USRs, and when someone says USR, we know what they are talking about, but int he 6th edition rulebook,t here is no such thing as USRs anymore.

And you are right... the first part only asks for 'special rules' but unusual PWs ask for 'unique close combat rules'. Which means what happens to weapons with special rules which are not deemed unique.

GW did not give us a definition to define which special rules counted as what. They could have, but they didn't they have been explicitly FAQing types to skip the clusterF the RAW is.

Glaives were neither "power weapons with no further special rules" or "unusual PWs" which means they were 'nothing'. and without GW giving us a default, some felt look at the model was default, others felt unusual was the catch all. Both RAI. Neither supported or confirmed via FAQ.

nkelsch wrote:

 Jstncloud wrote:


I obviously know this 'NOW' pre-FAQ is what I am referring to.

Go read the dante thread... Glaives pre-FAQ fell into a black hole where they had 'further special rules' but arguably did not have 'unique CC rules' which meant theyw ere neither power weapons OR unsusual PWs. Which meant the game broke and the weapons had no effects.

Which is why people either felt 'look at the model' was the default or 'unsuual' was the default. NOVA had to have a large table of what allt he weapons explicitly counted as because the rules for PWs are broken and 'look at the model' simply doesn't work for any weapons with special rules.

They are master crafted two handed 'power weapons'... I fail to see how that would break them. Those USRs can be linked to just about 'any' power weapon in the game, yet 'those' power weapons function correctly.

Master Crafted- one re-roll on a failed hit
Two Handed- cannot claim the bonus for 2 CCWs.

Astorath's Axe- (Formerly Unusual Power Weapon) Opponent must re-roll all successful invulnerability saves taken against this weapon. (Clearly a Unique rule in comparison to the above).

I am not sure how people couldn't function with the weapons above, at least it made sense to me.

 Jstncloud wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 Jstncloud wrote:


I obviously know this 'NOW' pre-FAQ is what I am referring to.

Go read the dante thread... Glaives pre-FAQ fell into a black hole where they had 'further special rules' but arguably did not have 'unique CC rules' which meant theyw ere neither power weapons OR unsusual PWs. Which meant the game broke and the weapons had no effects.

Which is why people either felt 'look at the model' was the default or 'unsuual' was the default. NOVA had to have a large table of what allt he weapons explicitly counted as because the rules for PWs are broken and 'look at the model' simply doesn't work for any weapons with special rules.

They are master crafted two handed 'power weapons'... I fail to see how that would break them. Those USRs can be linked to just about 'any' power weapon in the game, yet 'those' power weapons function correctly.

Master Crafted- one re-roll on a failed hit
Two Handed- cannot claim the bonus for 2 CCWs.

Astorath's Axe- (Formerly Unusual Power Weapon) Opponent must re-roll all successful invulnerability saves taken against this weapon. (Clearly a Unique rule in comparison to the above).

I am not sure how people couldn't function with the weapons above, at least it made sense to me.

There is no such thing as USRs... just Special rules. if your power weapon has special rules, you cannot look at the model to determine the type. But are those rules 'unique'? we have no definition of USRs not unique, everything else Unique. USRs don;t exist in 6th so there is no distinction of what special rules do not count.

Which breaks the game. So it makes all mastercrafted power weapons either AP3 or 'nothing'. Hence FAQs. They could have said 'BRB Special rules do not count for 'further special rules' when determining power weapon types' via a FAQ, but they haven't made that distinction, so there is no permission for power weapons with special rules to ever rely on 'look at the mode' for the type. So unless you have a type given, or it is unusual, the game breaks.

If you aren't supposed to look at the model, then why does the FAQ say you follow the rules for Types of Power Weapons?
(Please stop arguing with me on this at least, we both know it's there in black and white.)

So when GW tells us that "...Glaive Encarmines follow the rules as described in the Types of Power Weapon section on page 61 of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook..." they're actually telling us that they do not follow those rules? That is too convoluted, even for Games Workshop. Why not just give us the stats for the Glaive Encarmine instead of telling us that they use rules that they don't use? The wording is clear that despite the Glaive Encarmine having "... further special rules..." you still look at the model to determine if you have a Glaive Encarmine (Sword) or a Glaive Encarmine (Axe). The FAQ just doesn't make any sense the way you're interpreting it.

It is actually in pink and white but you're right, we both know its there. "They would therefore have the following profiles..."
Lance and Maul are not in the following profiles, therefore Glaives cannot be Lances or Mauls.

You've asked for the conversation to end 4 times now, yet you keep responding. You just want the last word. Putting things in bold and caps does not magically make it more correct. Stop being such a drama queen and either debate as an adult, or stop responding to the thread.

 Ghaz wrote:
So when GW tells us that "...Glaive Encarmines follow the rules as described in the Types of Power Weapon section on page 61 of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook..." they're actually telling us that they do not follow those rules? That is too convoluted, even for Games Workshop. Why not just give us the stats for the Glaive Encarmine instead of telling us that they use rules that they don't use? The wording is clear that despite the Glaive Encarmine having "... further special rules..." you still look at the model to determine if you have a Glaive Encarmine (Sword) or a Glaive Encarmine (Axe). The FAQ just doesn't make any sense the way you're interpreting it.

They did give us the stats for the Glaives, Lances and Mauls are not in the available stats. But he refuses to accept that as an answer.