Weapon swaps really legal?

slaktarn · **Posted:** Sun Sep 14, 2014 2:14 pm

Hi all!
I have always thought of weapon swapps as legal, something that you can do but it is frowned upon. However I stated checking the rules and I must say that I have not found anything that proves this.

So what in the rulesbook says you can do wepaon swaps?

I guess most people would say p. 67 in the small rulebook, "Look at the model..."
Though this does not convince me, nothing in this sentence gives you any imperssion that you are allowed to switch your weapon.
A weapon swap is after all a conversion. And a conversion is a modelling project and often made just for the look and has nothing with the actual rules to do, sometimes it does, llike mounting heroes that has no mount model.
To give this small sentence this much meaning is just interpreting it in your own favour.

As I understand the rules, they tell you what you can do, and everything else you cant. That is for example why you cant pick up your enemies models and throw them away (a favourite example I remember someone saying when discussing the rules).
Nothing in the rules actually says you can swap the weapon on your models would this not mean that you cant?

Is there any other rule that I have missed that give you permition?

have fun
slaktarn

JamesR · **Posted:** Sun Sep 14, 2014 2:28 pm

Unfortunately if a model's entry doesn't specify a weapon then you're free to do so as it's a generic hand weapon provided by the rules

slaktarn · **Posted:** Sun Sep 14, 2014 2:49 pm

Where can I find that rule?

JamesR · **Posted:** Sun Sep 14, 2014 3:19 pm

I'm unable to look at my rulebook as I'm at work but it's under hand weapons I believe. The section states that all models, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are considered to have a "hand weapon". This weapon's type is unspecified and that's where "weapon swap" abusers take the liberty of doing such abuse

SouthernDunedain · **Posted:** Sun Sep 14, 2014 3:29 pm

Pg 67 under single handed weapons.

jdizzy001 · **Posted:** Sun Sep 14, 2014 4:57 pm

Slaktarn, unless you find verbage that says you can *not* perform weapon swaps then you are out of luck. And since there is no rule that says you cant swap weapons, people will swap weapons. It is the same with many other games i've seen, if the rules are devoid of saying you cant do something then someone will try it.

slaktarn · **Posted:** Sun Sep 14, 2014 7:13 pm

I want to understand this correctly so let me know if this is how it is interpreted.
All models have hand weapons, the entry for models does not specify which one they have so players are free to convert them into carry which ever weapon they want?

Is this the argument for weapon swaps. This feels really against the rules as they are written, nothing there says anything about actually swaping the wepaon. What about the reference to look at the model, not to mention this FAQ

Q: If the profile of a model states that it is armed with a
two-handed weapon, such as an Uruk-hai Berserker or
Clansman of Lamedon, do they count as being armed with
a single-handed weapon as well? (p67)
A: Yes. Many of these models will have a secondary
weapon that is clearly visible on the model for the
purposes of determining which special strikes they can
make with their hand weapon. However, if it is unclear
which single-handed weapon a model is equipped with, it
cannot make a special strike.

The highlighted makes it very clear that if a model does not have a visable hand weapon you cannot make speical strikes, and since conversion does not affect rules (and weapon swap is a conversion) it should not be legal.

I think somebody has to really explain to me step by step how this argument works cause in my book this is very strange.

To jdizzy001: It works the other way around is my understandning. If you cant find it in the rules that you are allowed to do it, you are not allowed to do it. The rules tell you what you CAN do, all other things you CANT. Otherwise we get the argument that "The rules dont say that I cant pick up your models and throw them away so I can do it".

ste271276 · **Posted:** Sun Sep 14, 2014 7:21 pm

It doesnt say anywhere that you cant give Characters a shopping trolley, but You wouldnt go giving them one would you!!!!! lol
Cmon guys we all know putting weapons on a model that they wouldnt normally have is slightly taking advantage of an unwritten rule. untill GW state in a FAQ or something then your knackered!!!! You will have to put up with ppl piercing striking the heck outta you!

JamesR · **Posted:** Sun Sep 14, 2014 9:07 pm

Slaktarn you're correct on that part with *******Secondary Weapons*******

What I was speaking to was that all models have hand weapons. Your example only applies to models with two-handed weapons being unable to special strike with their single hand weapons. However look at a Haradrim or an orc or even an Elven warrior.
They have NO listed weapon in their profile because as SD said it's automatic that they have ONE WEAPON, that weapon is not specified and as such you are free to give the model an axe, sword, club, whip, or chicken leg as you so desire.

Edit: let me also add that I do not like this option. I prefer limits to what wargear is normally available to a model; however with RAW I believe (for now) weapon swaps are inescapable

Hodush · **Posted:** Mon Sep 15, 2014 2:30 am

Good on you Slaktarn for voicing your opinion so constructively, its a shame that there are a few responses from people which are not very constructive and can easily be taken as impolite.

To clarify, the argument (as I understand) is that every model has a single hand weapon unless specified as unarmed. Under special strikes it states that you need to see what they are armed with to use special strikes, so people model on axes etc so they can use that special strike, where other people will just leave the model as is and make do without special strikes.

I understand that it is the done thing, but the question is who is it done by? Not really the collectors or history buffs for nice conversions but more the people who are using it to win games - the power gamers. They have set a standard or idea that it is permissible to do this just by doing it themselves and attempting to back it up with what can be considered rules bending as it clearly isn't in the spirit of the game nor the intention of the rules. Thus why people frown upon it.
For this reason I completely disagree with the people who say that's just the way it is or that it has to be FAQ'd, it's a pretty clear case that it is only used for rules bending.

I haven't had any matchups against these powergamers, so I don't have an emotional resistance, just one of logic and spirit of the game. I tend to agree with you, if it doesn't say you can, then you probably can't is the better way to go.

I believe that the rules do forbid it and that we just need to stand up for the spirit of the rules. Going from the EFGT book p 67.
Everyone has a hand weapon or is unarmed.
Single handed weapons follow the NORMAL rules for dueling and striking blows
SOME single handed weapons & 2h weapons can be used to make SPECIAL strikes.
Look at the MODEL... then they can make that particular special strike.

Let me be clear about this.
There are normal rules for dueling and striking, clearly stated right there. Then there are special strikes. Special strikes are special, they are not normal. Therefore anything which is classed as a single handed weapon (anything not specifically listed in the wargear) would not be permitted to make special strikes.

Now we have an issue here in that GW clearly shows a Minas Tirith warrior as being able to do a Feint, even though he doesn't have a sword listed. Guess what, GW already has that covered.

Under the Special Strikes heading, it says some weapons can be used to make special strikes and that you need to look at the model in the case of both 1h and 2h weapons. So what is the model? It is the GW released model of course.
Since when do we use proxies at tournaments? Since when are non-gw models permitted? Since when are alterations that disrupt the game permitted (bigger bases, a model having a fence on its base and therefore has an in the way etc.. all those cheesy things which we never allow). I can't model a shield, spear or elven blade on and receive a bonus, so why can I do it for an axe? It's still unspecified wargear. That is why we use the Original model, not the converted one, to determine special strikes.

The original GW model is the one by which decisions should be made.

The community should stand up for the spirit of the rules and not just the letter of them. Does it look like GW is going to support LOTR for long? No. Then how can you rely on written rules only? What is the point of playing once GW drops the line? Its about community and fun, so why entertain things which are not fun now. Make it a combination of community spirit/spirit of the rules and textual rules. It's already done at tournaments, the majority of them aren't run by GW. The majority of them have restrictions of some sort (Tom and Goldberry). Stand up for the hobby you love, it doesn't mean that you have to be cruel to people, if we all agree that it isn't in the spirit of the game that's all you need to say, and I'd imagine that 99% of people would agree and then not bother to make unfair changes to their models.

So what does that look like to say the original model is the decider?
Look at all the models that GW has released for that troop (under the same name), whatever gear is sculpted on them is permissible to use. Simple.
If you want to go hard line, then only that exact model that you based it on is the one that is used. EG Iron guard, some have axes, some have swords. The hard line says you can only have swords on that guy.
The better and more relaxed way says, ok they have both swords and axes on some models, so you can use a combination of those weapons. No maces though as they aren't on any of the models. Weapons in the hand = hand weapon, those in the belt or wherever are considered throwing weapons if that is specified as a wargear option.

For reavers, there is no model other than the one pictured in the Fallen Realms. So you can go three ways,
Only swords as pictured
OR they have have whatever weapon they want
OR they can't use special strikes at all. As it is quite thematic, I don't mind reavers having axes and I don't altogether mind them being able to use Piercing Strike. Is there a problem with restricting reavers to having swords only? No, axes look super cool, but they will still do well in a fight, just as they were designed all those years ago before special strikes.
Woses only have spears and pipes, so no axes.
Rohan has swords and axes, so use whatever you want.
Anything which you normally have to pay for like spears and 2h axes you still have to pay for.

Quote:

Since conversion does not affect rules (and weapon swap is a conversion) it should not be legal.

Erunion · **Posted:** Mon Sep 15, 2014 3:03 am

Love it, Hodush. Those are my thoughts exactly. You just managed to state them in a convincing and polite way.

Gwaryan · **Posted:** Mon Sep 15, 2014 3:33 am

Great post, I agree entirely with what you've said. I've converted some Osgiliath Veterans to have a wide array of different weaponry but I never play them as such; it's entirely aesthetic and should have no impact on the game.

rumtap · **Posted:** Mon Sep 15, 2014 5:39 am

I still say that we didn't have these arguments before special strike rules came along.

I think the rules themselves are unbalanced and offer bigger benefits to some types of weapons that are not accounted for in the models points.

drop special strikes and this all goes away.

slaktarn · **Posted:** Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:11 am

Thanks Hodush. I also think it is to bad I dont get any constructive answers that explains matter better.
I dont think anyone is impolite however, I am not, but sometimes it can sound like it beacuse you only have a wall of text and it is difficult to get the emotion of the text.

You say exactly the same as me but perhaps in a clearer way. Having a hand weapon and being able to perform special strikes are two diffrent things. A high elf with a bow, for example, has a hand weapon but cant perform special strikes since it is not clear which weapon he has ( see the FAQ answer I posted).
I also agree that it is the original model you should use to decide weapons. Which means that even if I model an axe on that bowman I cant use piercing strike since it is not part of the original model, it is now a conversion and conversions should not interfere with rules excpet on rare occasions (mounting heroes etc).
No matter what you think the spirit of the game is however, I think that above all there is no indication in the rules that this is a legal move. I want this to be a rules debate about the legality of weapon swapps/addons. I dont like weapon swapps/addons as a way of getting more wins but this is purely to see the rules arguments for it.

"Your example only applies to models with two-handed weapons being unable to special strike with their single hand weapons. However look at a Haradrim or an orc or even an Elven warrior."

- No, that is not what the example applies to. A khazad guard can use the onehanded axe in his belt to piercing strike instead of his twohanded, an orc warrior with a twohanded axe can fight onehanded but cant perform special strikes since he has no visable weapon. So a two handed model can perform special strikes with hand weapons if they are clearly shown on the model. This takes me into my next point.

"They have NO listed weapon in their profile because as SD said it's automatic that they have ONE WEAPON, that weapon is not specified and as such you are free to give the model an axe, sword, club, whip, or chicken leg as you so desire." - JamesR

- But this is in direct contradiction to the FAQ answer that I provided "However, if it is unclear which single-handed weapon a model is equipped with, it cannot make a special strike."
They very specificaly say "a model" which implies that this answer cover all models in the game.
Why would you be free to give them any weapon anyway? I am rapeatiung myself here but remeber that having a hand weapon and being able to perform special strikes are two diffrent things, look at the example of the elf bowman. He has a hand weapon but cant perform special strikes, since it is not clear which type of weapon he has.
This can even go further. I have c onverted some high elfs to have shield and weapon, the hand wepaon is simply an eleven blade cut short, I would not be allowed to feint with this weapon since the original model does not show clearly which type of weapon the model has. A conversion should never interfere with the rules of the model or the game.

"Cmon guys we all know putting weapons on a model that they wouldnt normally have is slightly taking advantage of an unwritten rule. untill GW state in a FAQ or something then your knackered!!!! You will have to put up with ppl piercing striking the heck outta you!" - ste271276

- Or is it cheating, where is the line? Blutacking weapons to the back?

"I still say that we didn't have these arguments before special strike rules came along." - Rumtap

- Of coruse we did not have these arguments before special strikes, this is an argument about special strikes. Do you mean that there were no arguments of this level before special strikes?

I also wanna say that I am not at all trying to be hostiles with my posts or arugments, thay are mearly arguments in a rules debate.
This actually comes from me wanting to do some weapon swapps (whips on Black Guards, whip on the necromancer?) and just wanted to read the rules a little better to be able to give a proper explantion on why you are allowed to do weapon swapps. I just cant find any evidence for it, I find evidence for the opposite however.

have fun
slaktarn

Hodush · **Posted:** Mon Sep 15, 2014 8:36 am

Thanks guys, glad it came out clear enough

I understand people don't have time to write lengthy comments, so I'm not having a go at anyone either and I just mention it coming across as impolite as a reminder to be nice to each other, not because I thought anyone was being impolite.

Looking forward to some more replies. *group hug*

Dr Grant · **Joined:** Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:50 pm **Posts:** 1339

Here's one then Hodush :-)

*HUG*

For what it's worth I agree with the vast majority of the posts on here in terms of the spirt and intent of the rules. Everything I say below is purely playing devil's advocate, I've never put an axe on a model that shouldn't have one and I never intend to.

HOWEVER

It's perfectly and completely legal, is giving an axe to every model in your army against the intention of the rules? Yes, of course it is, but attempting to analyse the wording of the rules for proof that you can't is just pointless, as the game stands, you can.

slaktarn wrote:

I also agree that it is the original model you should use to decide weapons. Which means that even if I model an axe on that bowman I cant use piercing strike since it is not part of the original model, it is now a conversion and conversions should not interfere with rules

But as you've pointed out in your various posts, conversions do interfere with rules, your example of converting heroes to be mounted is a one good example of this. You can't simply say "conversions should not interfere with rules except for the times where they interfere with rules"

So am I not allowed to modify the original model at all? My mounted Eowyn model doesn't have a shield, I've put a shield on my model but, by your logic, this shouldn't be allowed as it's now a conversion and conversions should not interfere with rules. Similarly, models are allowed to carry axes, so modelling them as such is perfectly within the remit of the rules.

The Corsair Reavers example is another good one, there are no official models so people have to convert them (presumably by your logic Reavers can't be used in games as they're all conversions and conversions should not interfere with rules?). All of the plastic corsairs have swords so it's safe to assume that the Reavers would also have swords; However, as there are no models people give them axes and this seems to be fine when in fact it's no different at all to giving axes to any other troop type.

You ask who does this? Who uses these devious tactics? The answer is that a very small number of people use them in an attempt to win tournaments, is there anything wrong with that? Not really. GBHL Jamie has converted 8 Woses Warriors to carry axes, they look very nice and if you weren't told about it you wouldn't know they were conversions. Is it against the spirt of the rules? Yes, of course, but then so is putting Alfrid in the same force as Bombur, so is putting a Taskmaster next to the Necromancer, so is putting a Shade behind a Moria Goblin horde etc.

These are all just things that competitive players can do to get an edge in their games, they're all as legal as each other and huffing and puffing that they shouldn't be allowed to do so is just pointless.

Hodush wrote:

The original GW model is the one by which decisions should be made.

This is, of course, the answer. This is the intention behind the rules, bend down, see what weapon the model was sculpted with, proceed accordingly. I play an awful lot of games both casually and in the GBHL and I can honestly say that the reaction and outrage about converting weapons is vastly more prevalent than the amount of converting weapons that actually happens.

If you feel this strongly about it then great, don't do it and play with your friends (and the vast majority of other gamers) who agree with you and won't do it. The only time you're likely to come up against it is in a tournament and even then it;s very rare. As a regular tournament goer, I would far rather come up against Jamie's 8 Woses with axes than any of the other filthy tournament lists that I've hinted at above.

Leonardis · **Joined:** Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:06 pm **Posts:** 891

I didn't realise this was sooo contentious!

I don't see an issue, but then my woses army with axes didn't perform very well in the tournement, so can't be that OP.

Do some corsair reavers next ;-)

...I see even less of an issue with them as surely pirates/corsairs would use axes and picks, and as there isn't a model release for them, it is fair game surely!?

Anyway, I would be humble enough to not use the axes if it really upset someone, which it hasn't so far.

JamesR · **Posted:** Mon Sep 15, 2014 3:19 pm

I apologize if anyone read any rudeness in my previous post. I do grow a bit worn out of feeling like I'm beating my head against a wall on RAW instances as of late.

All that aside. GBHL (part time according to James lol) Dr Grant is correct, the theoretical issue is far worse than the practical impact that's been had. I wish factions had access to "armouries" (spelling?) And could only swap troop weapons for a few specific ones

Gondorian Captain · **Joined:** Mon Aug 06, 2012 1:13 pm **Posts:** 267

Its another classic example of the differences between players.
One builds and converts and army to look cool, the other does it to win games.

One one hand I think its great that players should be able to be inventive and to convert their models into any fashion that they like. But once you put that freedom (and a quite neccessary freedom of this hobby IMHO) you open the door to those that will manipulate it to win games.

For any of you that play 40K you may have seen some of this all ready, one player builds an ork trukk out of a massive monster truck because it looks bloody awesome! The other does it so his troops and weapons will be that closer to the enemy from the get go.

My own thoughts are rapildy becoming that if Special strikes are included in the game then each faction should have an FAQ list of weapons it has access to, eg. Rohan: Axes, swords, shields, spears

Or that Special strikes should just be removed from the game all together as I just don't see what they add to it any more. (but that is only my opinion, someone else may say the same towards, brutal power attacks, or monstorus cavalry or heroic marches...or hobbits..where does the line get drawn?)

As it stands in the GBHL the precident has been set. Unless an official or unoffical FAQ alters it or tournaments begin restricting it then its the current status quo for gaming as part of the UK league.
During casual games or in other tournmaments its down to players and TO's to choose what to do

ste271276 · **Posted:** Mon Sep 15, 2014 5:20 pm

@ Dr Grant

"The Corsair Reavers example is another good one, there are no official models so people have to convert them (presumably by your logic Reavers can't be used in games as they're all conversions and conversions should not interfere with rules?). All of the plastic corsairs have swords so it's safe to assume that the Reavers would also have swords; However, as there are no models people give them axes and this seems to be fine when in fact it's no different at all to giving axes to any other troop type."

The older Harad book Reaver profile says "2 swords".
I honestly think this is just an over sight on behalf of GW when they made the new sourcebooks. I think there are models that you should be able to put axes on and convert like orc swordsmen because there are already orcs with axes! lol
But putting axes on models which were never intended to have axes is where advantage is taken, in my opinion.
Iv said this somewhere else but untill GW address it and make a ruling we will all just have to put up with it because the players who put a lot of time and effort into attending and trying to win tournaments cant afford an opponent to have an advantage over them. ~Sad but fact!

Weapon swaps really legal?

Who is online