Runic Weapon

[MonSTeR]

and when you get your army disallowed because you don't "wysiwyg"...

 

Ticket price - non refundable

Gas mileage - non refundable

Time spent preparing for the tournament - non refundable

The look on your opponent's face when he wins by default - priceless

 

Or something like that...

 

It's fine if you only play friendly games, but when the tournament rules get enforced strictly, it can really ruin the fun of a good conversion...

 

in the case of tournament rules getting strictly enforced i would love to see half the players pack up and leave due to themed armies like that awesome adeptus mechanicus/tau/tyranid army i saw at bolscon 09 or 10 because that certainly wastn wysiwyg or that ork/ig army that clearly had orks but was using ig rules. (had them all dressed up like doughboys) or armies that arent painted or based.

 

hey this guy with the blue swirly hammer yeah thats a frost weapon... oh ok cool. as long as your list reflects it and you opponent has a copy of the same list then there should be no problems.

 

I'll admit to exagerating a bit (what Space Wolf wouldn't exagerate his tales of battle :) ) But in my experience, the problems don't happen so much when you have a themed army as when you have army specific items taken from other specific items from the same sprue, like when it's a case easily mistaking a SW thunder hammer for a SW runic weapon, which means what looked like a WGBL is in fact a RP and so on. I think you'd have to have it EXTREMEMLY clear as to what is what for this type of substitution and the rest of the model has to be fairly damn obvious. I've never been fond of the new "frost blade" = "power weapon" issue. It used to be that a frost blade was a hugely obvious chain bladed weapon, but that's fallen by the wayside.

 

Personally I've never seen a non-painted tournament army actually be fielded, but I've been out of the tournament scene for a little while. however it used to be one of the basic entry requirements round here.

[Wulfebane]

I've never been fond of the new "frost blade" = "power weapon" issue. It used to be that a frost blade was a hugely obvious chain bladed weapon, but that's fallen by the wayside.

 

Frost weapons were introduced in 3E as "frost blade or frost axe". Yes, in the single paragraph, they mention how fangs of ice kraken were used for the chainsaw blades, but that in no way limited them to only chain weapons.

 

In my opinion, the reason this misconception is so skewed in favor of chain weapons is due to the only model in the GW line that is definitively equipped and represented with a "frost blade" is Ragnar. However, prior to 3E in the 2E codex, Ragnar's blade is dubbed the "Frostfang" and proves once again how GW step on their own toes by claiming in the text for the Frostfang that "its chainsaw blade is fashioned from a rare metal whose secret died with the ancient Iron Priest."

 

All this leaves me to interpret that "frost" weapons are simply master-crafted, yet space wolfy, weapons. However, I would limit myself to blades and axes, and not thunderhammers.

 

Back on topic....

 

But in my experience, the problems don't happen so much when you have a themed army as when you have army specific items taken from other specific items from the same sprue, like when it's a case easily mistaking a SW thunder hammer for a SW runic weapon, which means what looked like a WGBL is in fact a RP and so on.

 

There is no such item as a "runic weapon" on any sprue. We only have Njal's staff and the RP model's axe to go by. In my opinion, the justification of having a RP with a TH and making sure people understand it as such is the same as claiming a model is a WGBL or that this model on a TWC/bike is really a Wolf Lord, etc. It's more than just the weapon. Obviously, your character models are going to have more.. character (bling, better/unique paint jobs, special bases, a pretty, flowing cape/pelt, etc) to have them stand out from the pack.

 

Every army has to deal with this and it's pretty understood that GW doesn't have every model for every army represented. It'd be like me putting chaos warhounds on the table, claiming them to be fenrisian wolves. How will my opponent know?? Because I just told him! If he can't remember that 5 to 30 minutes later, then I would question his intelligence. Regardless, he'll have my list, no where will it say chaos warhound. Debate settled.

 

How do you distinguish a basic loadout WG in power armor from a GH if he's leading the pack? Pack markings. Our codices/fluff already have the systems in place for distinguishing different models with similar gear. It's all in the application.

[MonSTeR]

Frost weapons were introduced in 3E as "frost blade or frost axe". Yes, in the single paragraph, they mention how fangs of ice kraken were used for the chainsaw blades, but that in no way limited them to only chain weapons.

 

In my opinion, the reason this misconception is so skewed in favor of chain weapons is due to the only model in the GW line that is definitively equipped and represented with a "frost blade" is Ragnar. However, prior to 3E in the 2E codex, Ragnar's blade is dubbed the "Frostfang" and proves once again how GW step on their own toes by claiming in the text for the Frostfang that "its chainsaw blade is fashioned from a rare metal whose secret died with the ancient Iron Priest."

 

All this leaves me to interpret that "frost" weapons are simply master-crafted, yet space wolfy, weapons. However, I would limit myself to blades and axes, and not thunderhammers.

 

I remember the whole introduction of the frost weapon malarkey, and indeed it described them as using the whole ninjadeathuberchainsaw from the get-go. It’s only recently with the introduction of the 5th edition codex that it’s been anything other than the aforementioned more powerful chainblade of whatever type. As you said, and I agree they can be anything these days. GW has mutable background and it changes at the whim of the games designers. Go back to the 1st edition rulebook and the SW were the warrior monks of the Adeptus Astartes Unit 4 “Spacewolves” and we were lead by Commander Enoch and lived on the agri-world of Lucan...

 

I’m not saying it’s “wrong” but I am saying that since 1992 to 2010 or whenever the codex came out, they were one thing, and now they’re anything...

 

 

Back on topic....

 

There is no such item as a "runic weapon" on any sprue. We only have Njal's staff and the RP model's axe to go by. In my opinion, the justification of having a RP with a TH and making sure people understand it as such is the same as claiming a model is a WGBL or that this model on a TWC/bike is really a Wolf Lord, etc. It's more than just the weapon. Obviously, your character models are going to have more.. character (bling, better/unique paint jobs, special bases, a pretty, flowing cape/pelt, etc) to have them stand out from the pack.

 

Agreed. A character model is more than just a weapon and so as long as things are obvious I don’t see that there’s a problem. BUT... Personally, in the same way, I think it’s discourteous to use a plasma gun and claim it’s a melta gun because you like the model better (realistically who would actually do this? Tell me so I can point and laugh), in the same way that representing one special CCW with another seems like a “poor show” to me. I’d have no problem with a suitable conversion (hence my suggestion of rooting out something from the dwarves...)

 

 

Every army has to deal with this and it's pretty understood that GW doesn't have every model for every army represented. It'd be like me putting chaos warhounds on the table, claiming them to be fenrisian wolves. How will my opponent know?? Because I just told him! If he can't remember that 5 to 30 minutes later, then I would question his intelligence. Regardless, he'll have my list, no where will it say chaos warhound. Debate settled.

 

And this demonstrates my point so eloquently... Chaos hounds are not wolves, so it’s easy to say that one very distinct model is another special troop type from a different list. However, in the case where an army is known for a certain theme, using a model representative of one of its signature themes as another is not what you’re suggesting.

 

Paint the same “sword” silver it’s a CCW, paint it pale blue and it’s a frost blade, paint it dark blue and it’s a power weapon. Really? REALLY??!?

 

It might be a stunning figure, but if I’m having to look at an opponent’s list every 5 seconds to work out what’s what and it’s not obvious then they’ve not modelled it very well. Please, dont’ get me wrong I love “counts as” armies, I absolutely do. But, it has to be well done or it’s just not worth it...

 

Refine this to a very basic question “Would you honestly want to play chess against an opponent who uses knights not just as his knights, but also for every pawn?” I wouldn’t.

 

 

How do you distinguish a basic loadout WG in power armor from a GH if he's leading the pack? Pack markings. Our codices/fluff already have the systems in place for distinguishing different models with similar gear. It's all in the application.

 

Indeed, and, as I said above if it’s done well I think it’s great. If lazybones sticks the standard thunderhammer onto a featureless grey marine and calls it a RunePriest, I raise an eyebrow but I accept it. If he has a WGBL with a thunderhammer using the same basic parts, then I think he needs to rethink his model selection.

 

I’m a grumpy old long fang and things were better in the old days...

[Freakiq]

Is it a weapon? Does it have one or more runes on it?

 

Then it is a runic weapon.

 

 

And yes, my Rune Priest does have a runic Plasma Cannon. :)

[Wulfebane]

BUT... Personally, in the same way, I think it’s discourteous to use a plasma gun and claim it’s a melta gun because you like the model better (realistically who would actually do this? Tell me so I can point and laugh), in the same way that representing one special CCW with another seems like a “poor show” to me.

 

Exactly. I would be annoyed if playing a tourney having to remember a plasma gun is a meltagun, and though I'm not sure you were agreeing or disagreeing with my comment, the two examples don't mesh. GW has made actual pieces for both plasma guns and meltaguns, meaning if someone was using one for another, then they're simply lazy and/or discourteous and not in line with WYSIWYG rules.

 

However, GW has not made a true-to-form, on a sprue, runic weapon, and that is where the contention rests. Unless GW is expecting everyone to go out and buy one of the RP model's axes for every RP in their army (which they are not, otherwise they'd have kept their bits catalog active), then having the item labeled as a runic "weapon" allows it to be any form we wish it to be, so long as it performs exactly as the rules dictate it should (runic plasma cannons aside). Having it called a "weapon" means that WYSIWYG rules go right out the window, since there is no quintessential form to it.

 

This falls in line with my chaos warhounds to fenrisian wolves example. GW doesn't make fen. wolves, so it's impossible to field them in a tourney as WYSIWYG. However, GW recognizes such shortcomings in their product line and allows for proxies (or even 3rd party models) to represent models they currently do not make. I believe such an example is transferable to the runic weapon debate.

[MonSTeR]

BUT... Personally, in the same way, I think it’s discourteous to use a plasma gun and claim it’s a melta gun because you like the model better (realistically who would actually do this? Tell me so I can point and laugh), in the same way that representing one special CCW with another seems like a “poor show” to me.

 

Exactly. I would be annoyed if playing a tourney having to remember a plasma gun is a meltagun, and though I'm not sure you were agreeing or disagreeing with my comment, the two examples don't mesh. GW has made actual pieces for both plasma guns and meltaguns, meaning if someone was using one for another, then they're simply lazy and/or discourteous and not in line with WYSIWYG rules.

 

However, GW has not made a true-to-form, on a sprue, runic weapon, and that is where the contention rests. Unless GW is expecting everyone to go out and buy one of the RP model's axes for every RP in their army (which they are not, otherwise they'd have kept their bits catalog active), then having the item labeled as a runic "weapon" allows it to be any form we wish it to be, so long as it performs exactly as the rules dictate it should (runic plasma cannons aside). Having it called a "weapon" means that WYSIWYG rules go right out the window, since there is no quintessential form to it.

 

This falls in line with my chaos warhounds to fenrisian wolves example. GW doesn't make fen. wolves, so it's impossible to field them in a tourney as WYSIWYG. However, GW recognizes such shortcomings in their product line and allows for proxies (or even 3rd party models) to represent models they currently do not make. I believe such an example is transferable to the runic weapon debate.

 

The point about the chaos warhounds illustrates the fact we're basically in agreement but have a couple of really importnat points that we aren't in line with each other over.

 

I'd have no problem with someone using chaos warhounds as fenrisian wolf as long as they're not using the same model as a cyberwolf in the same army.

 

I have no problem with someone using a warhammer as a runic weapon, or a modified thunderhammer as a runic weapon. But, like you've siad they've called it a runic weapon, not a runic space wolves thunderhammer... Conversion is key here, if it's not bloomin' obvious it's not a thunderhammer - from the model itself, it shouldn't be on a Rune Priest. Simple as that

 

And as for the part abour closing the bits catalogue, I'd suggest they'd be delighted for you to use a RP axe on each RP in they're army. They'd love you to spend the full price of the figure to get just one of the parts you're after... but that's a separate debate for another thread ;)

 

Is it a weapon? Does it have one or more runes on it?

 

Then it is a runic weapon.

 

 

And yes, my Rune Priest does have a runic Plasma Cannon. :P

On this note - how do people feel about the sword with runes on it on the SW sprue. Power Sword or Runic Weapon? Or, dare I say it... EITHER!!!!

[Wulfebane]

And as for the part abour closing the bits catalogue, I'd suggest they'd be delighted for you to use a RP axe on each RP in they're army. They'd love you to spend the full price of the figure to get just one of the parts you're after... but that's a separate debate for another thread

 

Truce! :P

[MonSTeR]

And as for the part abour closing the bits catalogue, I'd suggest they'd be delighted for you to use a RP axe on each RP in they're army. They'd love you to spend the full price of the figure to get just one of the parts you're after... but that's a separate debate for another thread

 

Truce! :P

 

Ale?

 

;)

[Vanek]

On this note - how do people feel about the sword with runes on it on the SW sprue. Power Sword or Runic Weapon? Or, dare I say it... EITHER!!!!

 

That's why I started this whole topic. I felt as if that piece was overused for just such a purpose.