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.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Thank you for conceding the point that raw is that sanguinor can't have an axe until citadel release a model of him with one.

You like to play it different to the raw and that is fine. But unless you can provide rules that allow you to use something other than the citadel miniature for the sanguinor you must use that model.

Are you reading a different thread than the rest of us?

We have provided specific rules quotes and you have just provide baseless assumption around how you would play it. Sorry, dude. You're done.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yes by raw units that do not have citadel miniatures to represent them can not be used nor can options not straight out of the box. And yes you have to use the sanguinor model as the sanguinor by raw as you have no permission to use anything else.

Citation please.

Just in case you don't understand, by citation I mean a quote and page number that that quote comes from. RAW stands for 'Read as Written'. If you're going to claim something as RAW the please share with everyone where it is written.

Nothing says which Citadel miniature you have to use, so you could use a Land Raider to represent The Sanguinor RAW.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Nothing says which Citadel miniature you have to use, so you could use a Land Raider to represent The Sanguinor RAW.

That could cause some issues haha. Having to get into BTB to assault, etc

Yep, luckily player convention easily covers that one.

I really do not see why this is still going on. pretre's arguement is really the only one that has any basis to it.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this thread, there were times I was laughing in disbelief.

The rules allow The Sanguinor to have either a Power Sword or a Power Axe to represent his Glaive Encarmine.

Start, middle and end of discussion right there. All those arguing otherwise, I pity you.

 wildboar wrote:
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this thread, there were times I was laughing in disbelief.

The rules allow The Sanguinor to have either a Power Sword or a Power Axe to represent his Glaive Encarmine.

Start, middle and end of discussion right there. All those arguing otherwise, I pity you.

Focus on what the rules say?!? Okay, I could get behind that. However, it's a Glaive Encarmine (Sword) or a Glaive Encarmine (Axe), not a power sword or a power axe. Just nitpicking.

The FAQ states that it follows the rules for Power Weapons (Sword or Axe).

nah, this thread isn't worth it.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Thank you for conceding the point that raw is that sanguinor can't have an axe until citadel release a model of him with one.

You like to play it different to the raw and that is fine. But unless you can provide rules that allow you to use something other than the citadel miniature for the sanguinor you must use that model.

GW makes glaive encarmines that are axes and swords.
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440192a&prodId=prod680007a
(Bottom left and Bottom right are clearly axes, other three are clearly swords).

BA FAQ says that a glaive encarmine can be either an axe or a sword. They don't tell us how to determine which, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say you determine it just like a normal power weapon, but looking at it.

Sanguinor has a non-defined glaive encarmine.

Are you going to say these are illegal on models?
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440339a&prodId=prod1460229a
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440335a&prodId=prod1710004a
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440335a&prodId=prod1710006a
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440277a&prodId=prod1710018a
Clearly GW allows conversions, as they sell conversion kits.

So I'll allow the actual sanguinor model with an actual glaive axe, just to laugh at those people when it gets faq'ed as a glaive (sword).

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:
BA FAQ says that a glaive encarmine can be either an axe or a sword. They don't tell us how to determine which, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say you determine it just like a normal power weapon, but looking at it.
Sanguinor has a non-defined glaive encarmine.

So I'll allow the actual sanguinor model with an actual glaive axe, just to laugh at those people when it gets faq'ed as a glaive (sword).

-Matt

Umm those are contradictory.

It may get FaQed to be just a sword, it may be FaQed to be any kind (Axe or Sword), or it may not be FaQed, until then play it how you want, since The Sanguinor has a non-defined glaive encarmine.

Axe or sword it is. Personally I'd rather have the sword on my Sanguinor - few of my opponents have any monsters that would both require an axe and leave my Sanguinor in any shape to hit them once I1 arrives. Not that I have a Sanguinot model either, but that's beside the point. ;-)

And another OT point: Ignore is a wonderful feature. I've found the few instances where I've used it to be really good for my enjoyment of the site.

Well, the Sanguinor is equipped quite nicely to be able to survive to strike at I1. 2+ armor and 3+ invuln will do that.

 DeathReaper wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:
BA FAQ says that a glaive encarmine can be either an axe or a sword. They don't tell us how to determine which, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say you determine it just like a normal power weapon, but looking at it.
Sanguinor has a non-defined glaive encarmine.

So I'll allow the actual sanguinor model with an actual glaive axe, just to laugh at those people when it gets faq'ed as a glaive (sword).

-Matt

Umm those are contradictory.

It may get FaQed to be just a sword, it may be FaQed to be any kind (Axe or Sword), or it may not be FaQed, until then play it how you want, since The Sanguinor has a non-defined glaive encarmine.

Yes, it is contradictory. It is because I don't agree that RAW and RAI are the in the same vein on this instance. So I'll let other people play it as RAW with a converted glaive (axe), and then mock them when(/if) Sanguinor gets a proper FAQ making his weapon match the one in his left hand.

-Matt

I posted the rules previously that prove you can use the sanguinor model as the sanguinor. If you want to use a different model by raw then you have to prove you can. Still waiting for anyone to address this very basic point.

Nah you're off the base here. The rules say you must use citadel miniatures, they do not say use a sanguinor as a sanguinor.

I think it's bad form and trying to crowbar an advantage with the sanguinor but the rules don't limit the model used to the named model from the GW range, that is convention.

No it says you must use citadel miniatures. There is a citadel miniature for the sanguinor guess what you must use. Show me where it says you can use a different citadel miniature.

For the record i think the rules are clear here and he can have an axe. But we're not talking about rai we're talking raw. And raw is clear unless you can show you have permission to use a different model.

You are adding in extra into the rules that are not there.

i love how its only pretty much one guy with one or two comments from others fighting this. It's been FAQd already, why are you fighting it? Generally speaking, when the entire forum is against you, that's usually a good sign your wrong.

But more to the topic, If you REALLY think that the sanguinator cannot change his weapon between axe or sword, when his codex says he can, basically because his kit doesn't come with one. (mind you which was released long before the change to power weapons in 6th, back when there was no difference between a PS or PA) Then by your logic any units are now MFA to equip themselves with any upgrade in there codex that does not come in the kit.

would LOVE to go through the naysayers armies and pick out a list of models that are now illegal by their own logic and watch them about face when its THEM being wrongfully restricted. ONCE AGAIN, its been FAQd multiple times in the first few pages...the discussion is over....../thread....

this has gotten as redundant and pointless as a thread still argueing if a MSS can use the Force rule...(spoiler alert: its been FAQd too and *gasp* people stopped arguing over it)

↑agreed↑

Let's talk about something else.

No it says you must use citadel miniatures. There is a citadel miniature for the sanguinor guess what you must use. Show me where it says you can use a different citadel miniature.

so any converted model of any degree is now MFA and illegal? hardly, the majority of players would lose 80% of their armies. I'd personally loose every necron model in my army except my two warrior blobs as ive done severe to minor conversions/adjustments to almost everything. Also, what abotu forgeworld? thats not a "GW" model even if they are slightly affiliated with each other, all FW models are now illegal. And what about models that have a GW written codex entry but no released model (GW wise). Can you just not use that entry and its a waste of ink? A few months ago, i would of had to rip about half my codex out because I couldnt use any of it legally by that logic.


As a side note, do you have a page number in the BRB that tells you specifically that you HAVE to use the GWs models and are unable to convert, make your own as long as they fit the codex entry (wargear and such for WYSIWYG) withotu going crazy with it, like coverting a 3" tall trygon model out of gaunt pieces?

 FlingitNow wrote:
No it says you must use citadel miniatures. There is a citadel miniature for the sanguinor guess what you must use.

You're saying that WYSIWYG is a rule?
Cite the page number please.

You're saying that WYSIWYG is a rule?

I wouldn't call it a rule per say, unless i'm wrong and its there. but with the change to power/force weapons and such WYSIWYG does have an effect. If you modeled the mini with a sword, then he has a sword, unless you tell the opponent otherwise, but generally speaking, I find this bad form unless it's a friendly game; in a tourney setting, I'd have problems with a player trying to switch his weapons around.

Just let it go, guys. FiN is either just trolling us or is some sort of auto responder with a broken shift key.

Sorry, WYSIWYG with respect to anything but power weapons. The Sanguinor model is not a power weapon, so applying the power weapon rule to the entire model is something that has no rules support. Unless I've missed something of course - and FlingitNow seems to imply that I have missed something. So I've asked for a page citation.

FlingitNow wrote:I posted the rules previously that prove you can use the sanguinor model as the sanguinor. If you want to use a different model by raw then you have to prove you can. Still waiting for anyone to address this very basic point.

FlingitNow wrote:No it says you must use citadel miniatures. There is a citadel miniature for the sanguinor guess what you must use. Show me where it says you can use a different citadel miniature.

For the record i think the rules are clear here and he can have an axe. But we're not talking about rai we're talking raw. And raw is clear unless you can show you have permission to use a different model.

You still have yet to cite a single rule with which you've 'proven' anything. NOWHERE does it say you have to use the model GW sells with the name Sangiunor. I myself have an awesome looking, imho, kitbash Sanguinor with a death company torso and legs, a sanguinary guard head, grey knight arms and sword, and a pair of wings from the dark eldar scourge kit. Is this model illegal? I hope not, 'cause I'm going to continue to use this kick@$$ model as the Sanguinor and accept the complements I get pertaining to its coolness. I may even magnetize its arm to be able to switch out his glaive encarmine (sword) with a sanguinary guard glaive encarmine (axe) just to see if I like that option better.

I'd magnetise it anyway, just swap it so you can have astorath when you need an axe man to kill characters. The whole re-roll invul saves thing as opposed to the sanguinor's just hack apart thing.

*waves hand* I'm in the school of thought that the sanguinor cannot change the weapon he has, but the guard can. I guess I don't matter, that or someone can't read that there's more than one person saying something like that.

overlordweasel wrote:

But more to the topic, If you REALLY think that the sanguinator cannot change his weapon between axe or sword, when his codex says he can

And.... the codex never says he can change his weapon. It never gives him an option. The only way to change it is to model it for an advantage, which is something you can do, but a TO may disallow it.

 juraigamer wrote:
*waves hand* I'm in the school of thought that the sanguinor cannot change the weapon he has, but the guard can. I guess I don't matter, that or someone can't read that there's more than one person saying something like that.

overlordweasel wrote:

But more to the topic, If you REALLY think that the sanguinator cannot change his weapon between axe or sword, when his codex says he can

And.... the codex never says he can change his weapon. It never gives him an option. The only way to change it is to model it for an advantage, which is something you can do, but a TO may disallow it.

The FAQ gives the option by giving two definitions for the weapon.