The Axe Mortalis

[Leksington]

I use the official Dante miniature. If I were to do battle against you and we both fielded our Dantes, do you feel that it is correct for me to use the axe rules and for you to use the sword rules?

Yes!

 

(unless of course it is ruled that it is a weapon with special rules. Then they would both have to count as AP3)

[JamesI]

I use the official Dante miniature. If I were to do battle against you and we both fielded our Dantes, do you feel that it is correct for me to use the axe rules and for you to use the sword rules?

Yes!

 

(unless of course it is ruled that it is a weapon with special rules. Then they would both have to count as AP3)

Which it clearly is. Master Crafted is a special rule.

[Morollan]

Full 9page thread Here

 

 

Summary Here

I feel like you keep leaving out the important question of counts-as dante.

 

If I can legally model a counts-as Dante with a Sword, it doesn't matter which way the ruling goes.

 

Why does my counts-as dante have to be modeled with an axe in his hand? (this goes for The Sanguinor as well)

 

Because if you point to a sword and tell me it's the Axe Mortalis, how is that WYSIWYG?

Because "Axe Mortalis" is a name not a rule. A counts-as model carries the exact same rules: Weapon XXXXXXX is mastercrafted and a power weapon.

 

So what you see IS what you get; a master crafted power weapon.

 

So you choose to ignore that fact that it's an axe and model it as a sword because you prefer the rules for power swords now that GW has distinguished them (again) from power axes. How is that not modelling for advantage?

 

Until GW tells us it is a power axe, it doesn't get eh power axe rules so how does it matter how its modeled. I modeld my Dante as a sword years ago, how is that modeling for advantage (if GW does FAQ it to say he has an Axe, I'll swap the model to an axe to avoid arguments).

 

I will say again, we don't look at the chart for axe, sword, maul, spear if the weapon has any special rules.

 

Page 39, Master Crafted is a special rule.

 

So until a FAQ says it is a master crafted power axe (like they did with Lemartes) its not an axe.

 

As was pointed out earlier in the thread, the rules that we rely on are contradictory, or at least incomplete

 

"Power Weapons:

If a models wargear says it has a power weapon with no further special rules, look at the model..to see what it has"

 

"Unique Power Weapons:

If a weapon has it's own unique close combat rules treat it as an AP3 weapon with the additional rules.."

 

Having no further special rules is not the same as having it's own unique close combat rules. So, as it has further special rules but they are not unique then we have no instruction on what to treat it as.

 

This needs a FAQ.

[JamesI]

Full 9page thread Here

 

 

Summary Here

I feel like you keep leaving out the important question of counts-as dante.

 

If I can legally model a counts-as Dante with a Sword, it doesn't matter which way the ruling goes.

 

Why does my counts-as dante have to be modeled with an axe in his hand? (this goes for The Sanguinor as well)

 

Because if you point to a sword and tell me it's the Axe Mortalis, how is that WYSIWYG?

Because "Axe Mortalis" is a name not a rule. A counts-as model carries the exact same rules: Weapon XXXXXXX is mastercrafted and a power weapon.

 

So what you see IS what you get; a master crafted power weapon.

 

So you choose to ignore that fact that it's an axe and model it as a sword because you prefer the rules for power swords now that GW has distinguished them (again) from power axes. How is that not modelling for advantage?

 

Until GW tells us it is a power axe, it doesn't get eh power axe rules so how does it matter how its modeled. I modeld my Dante as a sword years ago, how is that modeling for advantage (if GW does FAQ it to say he has an Axe, I'll swap the model to an axe to avoid arguments).

 

I will say again, we don't look at the chart for axe, sword, maul, spear if the weapon has any special rules.

 

Page 39, Master Crafted is a special rule.

 

So until a FAQ says it is a master crafted power axe (like they did with Lemartes) its not an axe.

 

As was pointed out earlier in the thread, the rules that we rely on are contradictory, or at least incomplete

 

"Power Weapons:

If a models wargear says it has a power weapon with no further special rules, look at the model..to see what it has"

 

"Unique Power Weapons:

If a weapon has it's own unique close combat rules treat it as an AP3 weapon with the additional rules.."

 

Having no further special rules is not the same as having it's own unique close combat rules. So, as it has further special rules but they are not unique then we have no instruction on what to treat it as.

 

This needs a FAQ.

I agree it needs a FAQ. Because it has special rules, we can't look at the chart.

 

In my opinion any weapon that does not look at the chart clearly goes to the only other option, which is Unique Power weapons.

[Leksington]

So you choose to ignore that fact that it's an axe and model it as a sword because you prefer the rules for power swords now that GW has distinguished them (again) from power axes. How is that not modelling for advantage?

No more than it is modeling for advantage when I'm picking a sword over an axe for a RAS Sergeant who similarly has a "power weapon".

[Leksington]

I use the official Dante miniature. If I were to do battle against you and we both fielded our Dantes, do you feel that it is correct for me to use the axe rules and for you to use the sword rules?

Yes!

 

(unless of course it is ruled that it is a weapon with special rules. Then they would both have to count as AP3)

Which it clearly is. Master Crafted is a special rule.

I'd say that it is not clear either way. You make a compelling argument. But so do those who say the opposite.

[JamesI]

I use the official Dante miniature. If I were to do battle against you and we both fielded our Dantes, do you feel that it is correct for me to use the axe rules and for you to use the sword rules?

Yes!

 

(unless of course it is ruled that it is a weapon with special rules. Then they would both have to count as AP3)

Which it clearly is. Master Crafted is a special rule.

I'd say that it is not clear either way. You make a compelling argument. But so do those who say the opposite.

My final word. How is it not clear that Master Crafted is a special rule? Page 39 of the rulebook, master crafted appears in the section called Special Rules.

[Blindhamster]

I suggest - everyone in this thread that wishes to know the answer, sends an email to GW requesting to know how all these weapons are supposed to be used. I've sent one, and I sent a second replying to my first as I'd had no reply within their 48hour reply time. I know JamesI has also sent one... just need to make it clear to them that they left things pretty unclear for us...

[Leksington]

My final word. How is it not clear that Master Crafted is a special rule? Page 39 of the rulebook, master crafted appears in the section called Special Rules.

The quick counter argument: How can Master Crafted be a "unique close combat rule"? Page 39 of the rulebook, master crafted appears in the section called Special Rules. If it is a common 'special rule' it certainly isn't unique.

[Grey Mage]

My final word. How is it not clear that Master Crafted is a special rule? Page 39 of the rulebook, master crafted appears in the section called Special Rules.

The quick counter argument: How can Master Crafted be a "unique close combat rule"? Page 39 of the rulebook, master crafted appears in the section called Special Rules. If it is a common 'special rule' it certainly isn't unique.

Saying that its not a unique rule because another model could have the same rule muddles the water to much- there are alot of similar, and even identical- special rules that get tacked on to power weapons. Do they get stuck in some sort of limbo? No, they become unusual powerweapons. Same thing happens here.

 

The Axe Mortalis- it has a name, so it is its own type of wargear.

Is a powerweapon- ok we got that. Now to look for what type it is.

Is mastercrafted- it has rules beyond being a power weapon. As part of its description...

 

Thats all it takes as far as I can see for it to be an unusual powerweapon.

[Leksington]

My final word. How is it not clear that Master Crafted is a special rule? Page 39 of the rulebook, master crafted appears in the section called Special Rules.

The quick counter argument: How can Master Crafted be a "unique close combat rule"? Page 39 of the rulebook, master crafted appears in the section called Special Rules. If it is a common 'special rule' it certainly isn't unique.

Saying that its not a unique rule because another model could have the same rule muddles the water to much- there are alot of similar, and even identical- special rules that get tacked on to power weapons. Do they get stuck in some sort of limbo? No, they become unusual powerweapons. Same thing happens here.

 

The Axe Mortalis- it has a name, so it is its own type of wargear.

Is a powerweapon- ok we got that. Now to look for what type it is.

Is mastercrafted- it has rules beyond being a power weapon. As part of its description...

 

Thats all it takes as far as I can see for it to be an unusual powerweapon.

Except the rule calls for "unique", not unusual.

 

Like I said, there are excellent arguments for both sides, and only a GW ruling is going to satisfy me.

[daboarder]

Unique is entirely subjective. In what context does the weapons rule's need to be Unique?

 

Dante's weapon is the ONLY 1-handed master crafted power weapon in the BA codex, within the context of that codex that makes it more unique than a Relic blade which are available multiple times throughout codex SM. What about Daemon weapons? hardly unique as they are clearly generic in that they have no names.

[Freman Bloodglaive]

Well I checked with GW and they stated Dante's axe was an AP3 power weapon, so that means it is the wrong answer. ;-)

[vahouth]

Well I checked with GW and they stated Dante's axe was an AP3 power weapon, so that means it is the wrong answer. ;-)

 

IMHO, people won't believe it until they see it in the official FAQ though.

[Morollan]

Unique is entirely subjective. In what context does the weapons rule's need to be Unique?

 

Dante's weapon is the ONLY 1-handed master crafted power weapon in the BA codex, within the context of that codex that makes it more unique than a Relic blade which are available multiple times throughout codex SM. What about Daemon weapons? hardly unique as they are clearly generic in that they have no names.

 

Unique is not in any way subjective. It is a binary state and something either is unique or it is not. Which is why people saying "very unique" annoys me, but I'm funny like that. B)

[JamesI]

My final word. How is it not clear that Master Crafted is a special rule? Page 39 of the rulebook, master crafted appears in the section called Special Rules.

The quick counter argument: How can Master Crafted be a "unique close combat rule"? Page 39 of the rulebook, master crafted appears in the section called Special Rules. If it is a common 'special rule' it certainly isn't unique.

Saying that its not a unique rule because another model could have the same rule muddles the water to much- there are alot of similar, and even identical- special rules that get tacked on to power weapons. Do they get stuck in some sort of limbo? No, they become unusual powerweapons. Same thing happens here.

 

The Axe Mortalis- it has a name, so it is its own type of wargear.

Is a powerweapon- ok we got that. Now to look for what type it is.

Is mastercrafted- it has rules beyond being a power weapon. As part of its description...

 

Thats all it takes as far as I can see for it to be an unusual powerweapon.

Except the rule calls for "unique", not unusual.

 

Like I said, there are excellent arguments for both sides, and only a GW ruling is going to satisfy me.

Well, the rule also say don't look at the chart if it has a "special rule".

[daboarder]

Unique is entirely subjective. In what context does the weapons rule's need to be Unique?

 

Dante's weapon is the ONLY 1-handed master crafted power weapon in the BA codex, within the context of that codex that makes it more unique than a Relic blade which are available multiple times throughout codex SM. What about Daemon weapons? hardly unique as they are clearly generic in that they have no names.

 

Unique is not in any way subjective. It is a binary state and something either is unique or it is not. Which is why people saying "very unique" annoys me, but I'm funny like that. :)

 

No its all about context.

whithin what limits do we determine "unique" is it the armylist? the codex? the game? the quantum states of the atoms that make up the ink the rule is printed with?

 

See Unique is an entirely contextual word whose application is entirely determined by the bounds that are place on it.

[Morollan]

Unique is entirely subjective. In what context does the weapons rule's need to be Unique?

 

Dante's weapon is the ONLY 1-handed master crafted power weapon in the BA codex, within the context of that codex that makes it more unique than a Relic blade which are available multiple times throughout codex SM. What about Daemon weapons? hardly unique as they are clearly generic in that they have no names.

 

Unique is not in any way subjective. It is a binary state and something either is unique or it is not. Which is why people saying "very unique" annoys me, but I'm funny like that. :)

 

No its all about context.

whithin what limits do we determine "unique" is it the armylist? the codex? the game? the quantum states of the atoms that make up the ink the rule is printed with?

 

See Unique is an entirely contextual word whose application is entirely determined by the bounds that are place on it.

 

Okay granted, if you want to take it to a molecular level then there is an element of context involved but assuming we are using normal English (and common sense) then I think we can agree that "it's own unique close combat rules" can be limited to the context of the game and taken to mean that no other weapon shares the same rules (or combination of rules).

[Morticon]

Hopefully people will take a minute to read the following argument and let me know what they think. Personally, I believe it's one of the stronger arguments for AP3.

 

***

If we exclude the "special rule" paragraph and look solely at the "unique" special rule we have this:

Rule Book 61:

"Unique Power Weapons:

If a weapon has it's own unique close combat rules treat it as an AP3 weapon with the additional rules.."

 

 

Now let us, for the sake of argument, agree with all our opposition that Dante's rule is not unique.

 

What now?!

How do we treat this weapon?

What rules do we use to see what Dante is armed with?

 

Answer:

There is no way to know what he is armed with if we follow this line of reasoning.

 

Why?

 

In order for us to be able to use this weapon we now MUST follow the "look and see" rule which has this very specific caveat:

 

Rule Book 61:

"If a models wargear says it has a power weapon with no further special rules, look at the model..to see what it has"

 

 

So....following the "Dante has AP1" proponents' logic we are left with a cyclical and unresolvable issue.

 

 

 

If, however, we agree that mastercrafted is unique in this case, we are not left with the same issue.

 

Therefore I am firmly in the AP3 camp.

For what it's worth, I dont believe it was meant to be this way. But, I cannot divine intention.

[JamesI]

I've made that same argument on another forum Morticon, didn't realize I forgot to post it here.

 

Thanks!

 

Personally, I don't really care what GW intended, and don't want to waste time figuring it out. If GW intends for it to be an axe, they can FAQ it. If they intend it to be a unique weapon, they can FAQ it.

 

By RAW of right now, I am certain its an AP3 weapon.

[Venemox]

I've made that same argument on another forum Morticon, didn't realize I forgot to post it here.

 

Thanks!

 

Personally, I don't really care what GW intended, and don't want to waste time figuring it out. If GW intends for it to be an axe, they can FAQ it. If they intend it to be a unique weapon, they can FAQ it.

 

By RAW of right now, I am certain its an AP3 weapon.

 

I'm firmly in this camp, due to the 'no further special rules' clause that is required to be met before you are allowed to use the BGB table for 'standard' power weapons. I also think it's good either way, but that you need to know that when you build your list so you can pair him appropriately with other characters and units. Roll off's at the table are good for most things, but not when they would change list design.

[Dragonet40k]

* Lemartes' Crozius was explicitly stated to be a Power Maul (master crafted) in the FAQ- it was done so with the weapon having the exact same conditions as Dante's Axe and also being able to follow the guidelines as listed in the above argument.

 

With regards to this point, I actually see it as a point in favour of the Axe being an Axe.

 

I believe the real reason they specifically mentioned Chaplains' Crozius (And Lemartes's Blood Crozius) as Power Mauls was to prevent the more munchkin players from trying to claim them as being Power axes for the improved AP it brings, not for any other reason, as the weapon on the models is not necessarily obvious as a maul. Lemartes's Blood Crozius was simply included to make sure no-one tried the Crozius = Power Axe argument with him.

 

Given that the Blood Crozius has exactly the same conditions as the Axe Mortalis - Unique Name/Master-crafted Power Weapon description - then the only reason I can think for the Crozius to be FAQ'd, but not the Axe is that it is not obvious what weapon category the crozius falls into from purely looking at the model without the FAQ but it IS obvious what category the Axe falls into (Axe) from looking at the model.

[JamesI]

* Lemartes' Crozius was explicitly stated to be a Power Maul (master crafted) in the FAQ- it was done so with the weapon having the exact same conditions as Dante's Axe and also being able to follow the guidelines as listed in the above argument.

 

With regards to this point, I actually see it as a point in favour of the Axe being an Axe.

 

I believe the real reason they specifically mentioned Chaplains' Crozius (And Lemartes's Blood Crozius) as Power Mauls was to prevent the more munchkin players from trying to claim them as being Power axes for the improved AP it brings, not for any other reason, as the weapon on the models is not necessarily obvious as a maul. Lemartes's Blood Crozius was simply included to make sure no-one tried the Crozius = Power Axe argument with him.

 

Given that the Blood Crozius has exactly the same conditions as the Axe Mortalis - Unique Name/Master-crafted Power Weapon description - then the only reason I can think for the Crozius to be FAQ'd, but not the Axe is that it is not obvious what weapon category the crozius falls into from purely looking at the model without the FAQ but it IS obvious what category the Axe falls into (Axe) from looking at the model.

Or, that they wanted the Crozius played as a Maul. Without the FAQ, by the rules, the Blood Crozius would be a unique weapon. Same as Khârn.

 

If they FAQed those odd weapons, and not Dante, Glaives, Astorath's axe, that could mean they wanted some weapons to operate as axes/mauls and others not to.

[daboarder]

Unique is entirely subjective. In what context does the weapons rule's need to be Unique?

 

Dante's weapon is the ONLY 1-handed master crafted power weapon in the BA codex, within the context of that codex that makes it more unique than a Relic blade which are available multiple times throughout codex SM. What about Daemon weapons? hardly unique as they are clearly generic in that they have no names.

 

Unique is not in any way subjective. It is a binary state and something either is unique or it is not. Which is why people saying "very unique" annoys me, but I'm funny like that. :yes:

 

No its all about context.

whithin what limits do we determine "unique" is it the armylist? the codex? the game? the quantum states of the atoms that make up the ink the rule is printed with?

 

See Unique is an entirely contextual word whose application is entirely determined by the bounds that are place on it.

 

Okay granted, if you want to take it to a molecular level then there is an element of context involved but assuming we are using normal English (and common sense) then I think we can agree that "it's own unique close combat rules" can be limited to the context of the game and taken to mean that no other weapon shares the same rules (or combination of rules).

 

Not to pick a fight but I disagree about the context your suggesting based upon Relic blades, what AP is a relic blade? it most certainly does NOT have unique rules their are plenty of weapons particularly in the BA codex that all strike at set strength values, therefore the relic blade falls into the same rules conundrum as the Axe Mortallis. It is far more likely that the context for "unique" is "anything different to here".

[DarkGuard]

Unique is entirely subjective. In what context does the weapons rule's need to be Unique?

 

Dante's weapon is the ONLY 1-handed master crafted power weapon in the BA codex, within the context of that codex that makes it more unique than a Relic blade which are available multiple times throughout codex SM. What about Daemon weapons? hardly unique as they are clearly generic in that they have no names.

 

Unique is not in any way subjective. It is a binary state and something either is unique or it is not. Which is why people saying "very unique" annoys me, but I'm funny like that. :yes:

 

No its all about context.

whithin what limits do we determine "unique" is it the armylist? the codex? the game? the quantum states of the atoms that make up the ink the rule is printed with?

 

See Unique is an entirely contextual word whose application is entirely determined by the bounds that are place on it.

 

Okay granted, if you want to take it to a molecular level then there is an element of context involved but assuming we are using normal English (and common sense) then I think we can agree that "it's own unique close combat rules" can be limited to the context of the game and taken to mean that no other weapon shares the same rules (or combination of rules).

 

Not to pick a fight but I disagree about the context your suggesting based upon Relic blades, what AP is a relic blade? it most certainly does NOT have unique rules their are plenty of weapons particularly in the BA codex that all strike at set strength values, therefore the relic blade falls into the same rules conundrum as the Axe Mortallis. It is far more likely that the context for "unique" is "anything different to here".

 

Striking at fixed S6 with modifiers not working is pretty unique. I can't really think of any. The only weapon I can think of from BA that does something similar is Astorath's weapon, and that has a different set of rules anyway.