AGPO Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 First of all I hope this doesn't violate the rule on discussion of 'look and see' as I'm asking a slightly different and specific question. For my Angels Sanguine army I made proxies of the special characters from the Blood Angels and C:SM books. Wargear wise they were all perfectly WYSIWYG friendly under 5th edition, however with the new book power weapons and other melee weapons have obviously changed into specific sub categories. I modelled my proxies with different types to those shown on the 'proper' characters (e.g. my Dante and Astorath have swords rather than axes, and my Corbulo has a two handed chainsword.) I feel this raises a new issue as 'look and see' states you look at the model to determine what it is equipped with. Until there is an official ruling on what these characters are equipped with, my solution will be to go on what my models rather than the official GW ones carry as (A) this is the RAW interpretation and (<_< The official entries only state power weapon, not type. However I don't want to be accused of modelling for advantage, as that's something I'm personally very much against. Is my solution fair? Any thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesI Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 I did the same thing AGPO. My Astorath and Dante both have swords. Now with Corbulo, I don't see any issue, and there is no debate about Astorath either (I have yet to see anyone claim Astorath's axe is not a unique weapon). I think its perfectly fair to say its a sword since its modeled as a sword, but outside your friends I would expect to be accused to cheating if these players do not accept the idea that Dante's axe is a unique weapon too. But lets make sure this thread is not turned into another axe or not debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leksington Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 GW is retarded when it comes to categorizing weapons. This is going to lead to tons of WYSIWYG problems. I think we (as gamers) need to be very forgiving when it comes to weapons and WYSIWYG, and be more precise with our list building. Spots where GW has dropped the ball: -A hammer is maul. If I model a DC with a Hammer, what do I need to do to distinguish a Power Maul from a Thunderhammer? -An axe with weight behind it (like the type for splitting wood) is also a maul. If I put something like this on a model is it an axe or a maul? -A glaive is a polearm, but GW gives us models with axes and swords?!?!? And to confuse it even more, they are saying a halberd is an axe. GW dropped the ball, and it is up to us to pick it up. That means making it clear what weapon we intend to be using, and being very flexible with WYSIWYG rulings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darklighter Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 I have to admit the weapon "look and see" rules and there categorization is the one point of this new edition that gets me mad time and time again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lividjoker Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 A hammer is maul. If I model a DC with a Hammer, what do I need to do to distinguish a Power Maul from a Thunderhammer?-An axe with weight behind it (like the type for splitting wood) is also a maul. If I put something like this on a model is it an axe or a maul? Well our current DC (and most of the other entries) don't have a Maul so yeah its going to be a Thunderhammer. The Axe as a maul or an Axe same again the Maul doesn't exist in unit entries yet (bar the chaplains) Remember that where it used to say '....may take a power weapon..' most of those have now been changed to '....may now take a power sword' thus at that point WYSIWYG applies. As long as you're paying the right points costs for those weapons I see no problem. Until a new codex comes out Lances, Mauls and Axes wont be on many of our guys unless the unit's entry was FAQ'd to include them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesI Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 Remember that where it used to say '....may take a power weapon..' most of those have now been changed to '....may now take a power sword' thus at that point WYSIWYG applies. As long as you're paying the right points costs for those weapons I see no problem. Until a new codex comes out Lances, Mauls and Axes wont be on many of our guys unless the unit's entry was FAQ'd to include them. Actually the opposite is true. Everything has been FAQed to say power weapon. So you go by what the model is carrying be it a sword, axe, maul or spear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lividjoker Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 Remember that where it used to say '....may take a power weapon..' most of those have now been changed to '....may now take a power sword' thus at that point WYSIWYG applies. As long as you're paying the right points costs for those weapons I see no problem. Until a new codex comes out Lances, Mauls and Axes wont be on many of our guys unless the unit's entry was FAQ'd to include them. Actually the opposite is true. Everything has been FAQed to say power weapon. So you go by what the model is carrying be it a sword, axe, maul or spear. My bad then, must've misread them. Either way though a maul and Thunderhammer should be easy to tell apart. Mauls are generally going to be one handed, whereas most Thunderhammers are 2H. Again when is an Axe going to be a Maul. If we're going to do 'count as' or have it so they are interchangeable then they should at least look the part. If you want to have interchangeable weapons because you like to swap out you're going to either have to magnetize or have different guys you can put in instead. Failing that just tell your opponent, its not like their going to scream and shout at you against you and throw their models on the floor and storm of. Agree before you play peeps! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamaNagol Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 If that character can only have that wargear as specified in the codex, there is no issue with WYSIWYG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quixus Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 Either way though a maul and Thunderhammer should be easy to tell apart. Mauls are generally going to be one handed, whereas most Thunderhammers are 2H.Not true. Nowhere does it say in our codex that thunder hammers are two-handed weapons. The existing restriction actually says they cannot (sensibly) be two-handed. You get an extra attack if you wield two of them. How would you do that with two two-handed weapons? Additionally there is even one unit that can be equipped with thunderhammers in one hand and Storm Shields in the other (Hammernators) right out of the box and other units can legally be equipped with a Thunderhammer in one hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sp4rky Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 If that character can only have that wargear as specified in the codex, there is no issue with WYSIWYG Yes, this makes sense, surely? If Marneus Calgar has a pair of Power Fists then it doesn't matter if I model him with a bunch of bananas :( (I think I've seen someone say that before on this forum). But the problem is when it comes to other guys like Dante and Mephiston who don't have a specific weapon that can only be one thing (other conversations on the subject of what these weapons actually are are of course ongoing). Differentiating between a Power Hammer or a Thunder Hammer could prove difficult but I suspect not many people will actually do that on their guys. I quite like the new power weapon types we have access to now, it adds a nice bit of change to the old "strike at initiative, ignores armour" - now we have some AP4 but stronger, AP3 and at initiative, AP2 but unwieldy. Personally I'm trying to build some Mauls to put on my Sergeants as I think they will look very cool and against 2+ save models they'll still have their save whether I put a sword or maul on them (lots of my regular opponents are 4+ armour or 2+, rarely do I see enough 3+ to warrant a sword in my area). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGPO Posted July 9, 2012 Author Share Posted July 9, 2012 If that character can only have that wargear as specified in the codex, there is no issue with WYSIWYG That's just it though, the codex doesn't specify. For example, I'm using Dante's rules to represent Sentikan, Chapter Master of the Angels Sanguine. When I made the model for 5th edition Dante's Axe Mortalis was described only as a master crafted power weapon, so I gave my Sentikan model a sword. Now though there is a distinction in the rules between an axe and a sword. This isn't covered by the codex, so should I look at the Dante model and say I have to take an axe, or my own model with his version of a power weapon and call it a sword? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenith Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 If that character can only have that wargear as specified in the codex, there is no issue with WYSIWYG That's just it though, the codex doesn't specify. For example, I'm using Dante's rules to represent Sentikan, Chapter Master of the Angels Sanguine. When I made the model for 5th edition Dante's Axe Mortalis was described only as a master crafted power weapon, so I gave my Sentikan model a sword. Now though there is a distinction in the rules between an axe and a sword. This isn't covered by the codex, so should I look at the Dante model and say I have to take an axe, or my own model with his version of a power weapon and call it a sword? See: Actually the opposite is true. Everything has been FAQed to say power weapon. So you go by what the model is carrying be it a sword, axe, maul or spear. Models that use Dante's rules are armed with master crafted power weapons. Look at the model, and see what kind of power weapon he has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hadron Ka'sel Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Ok some im sure some people are about to flame me for saying this but Mortalis is a Mastercrafted power weapon. Master crafted is a special rule and change how the weapon is used there for Mortalis is an AP3 power weapon with the mastercrafted rule. The only problem comes when people start disputing whether or not mastercrafted is seen as a special rule or not. So as a result you should be able to model it how ever you want as either way its still going to be an ap3 mastercrafted weapon. Note: the rule in regards to power weapons does not state that it has to be a unique rule to be counted as ap3, it simply says any special rule. Hope this is helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zedrenael Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Ok some im sure some people are about to flame me for saying this but Mortalis is a Mastercrafted power weapon. Master crafted is a special rule and change how the weapon is used there for Mortalis is an AP3 power weapon with the mastercrafted rule. The only problem comes when people start disputing whether or not mastercrafted is seen as a special rule or not. So as a result you should be able to model it how ever you want as either way its still going to be an ap3 mastercrafted weapon. Note: the rule in regards to power weapons does not state that it has to be a unique rule to be counted as ap3, it simply says any special rule. Hope this is helpful. Here we go again. Can we not get into this argument again. Please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hadron Ka'sel Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 double post, sorry. Though i just wanted to add that its worth letting people know both sides of the debate. Last thing you want to do is go in thinking hes armed with one thing and then have the other person tell you you cant. Roll off for the win! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hadron Ka'sel Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 dont worry, i was only mentioning it. Im not trying to start any debates. I just thought it was worth mentioning because there are the two interpretations of the rule. I promise you thats all i was doing :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenith Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Last thing you want to do is go in thinking hes armed with one thing and then have the other person tell you you cant. Yea man, it would be handy of having a way to look at a model, and know what it is armed with? We could come up with an acronym for the rule, like AMAWWIG: "A Model's Armed With What It's Got" ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.