Hi all.
First of all, this is not a discussion about morale and spirit of the game. This is a rules debate, please leave emotions out of this debate.
People seem to think this is a very dear subject to me, it is not. I dont care if I see elves, woses or easterlings with axes, I do get upset when it comes to named characters, (check out SFAQ nr39, I am Peter Sanzén at the end) but that is not the point of this discussion.

This is the offical rules forum and I simply ask about a rule. I have played this game since it came out with the first movie 2001 but what if I had been a complete newbie that wondered and gotten these answers. Just a bunch of opinons about spirit and powergaming instead of actual rules reference. This upsets me more than the subject itself, very little however. It is sad that there seem to be some sort of unwillingness to discuss this in a constructive way.

"It's perfectly and completely legal," - Dr Grant
- Ok, explain how, what rules support this? Very constructive argument I must say...
Has the GBHL "house ruled" this and just said "it is legal" then fine, I can accept that, no problem.
I have given some reason why I think it is not, given examples in the rulebook and FAQ. So far I have had one vauge example of why it is legal (still not been verified). I gave some counter-arguments but since then nothing.

"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" - Dr grant
- Yes I could have been clearer with what I meant.
There is a big diffenrence with converting something to follow the rules, and converting something to break the rules. In order to field Gil-galad on a horse a player must make a conversion or use a sutiable "proxy" if allowed or he will not follow the rules. All equipment should be visable on the model so if Eowyn wants a shield you should model a shield on her. I would of course let somebody field Eowyn with a shield even if it is not modelled on her beacuse she still follows the rules for entry..
A person may however not put a troll on a infantry base beacuse this would change the way the model works or put a fence on his base and claim cover/defending beacuse this changes how the game works.
Weapon swaps/addons are more like the second example than the first. You change the way the model interacts in the game rather than makeing sure you follow a rule.
Therfore there is a big difference with how conversion works.

I also want to say that I love conversions, before the Hobbit came out I gave a lot of my orcs diffrent wepaons from Fantasy battle, whips, maces, axes, swords, great fun!
And I have made several other conversions also. Posted some on the facebook group a while back.

have fun all
slaktarn

_________________
Swedish gamer?
Drop me a message!

First things first, please refrain from writing needlessly antagonistic comments. A lot of people, myself included, have taken the time to write long replies to you. If you're going to write sarcastic responses to anyone who disagrees with you then you're not going to get very far.



This whole thread has been polite and constructive, I really don't see your issue here.



The major problem with this being that it's you that's decided that 'conversion does not affect rules' that's not written anywhere in the rulebook. It's also a direct contradiction with the examples already given about mounted heroes, Reavers and Eowyn etc. where conversions clearly affect rules.



Again, this is purely your opinion, swapping weapons is not breaking the rules, there is nothing in the rulebook that says you can't swap weapons, it's simply implied. As it's merely implied, it's down to each player to decide how they wish to use the rules and this is where the spirit of the game come in - whether you are willing to discuss it or not.



I would say that putting a Hero on a horse has a pretty big impact on how a model interacts in the game...


As for the rules, they really are quite clear and they've been outlined in previous posts but I will summarise them here.

If a model is carrying a visible hand weapon it can special strike with that weapon

All models are assumed to carry a hand weapon but if you can't see it on the model you may not special strike with it.

If I give my warrior of Minas Tirith an axe - it fulfils the first point.

This has not been house-ruled by the GBHL or anyone else, it is simply the way it is played at all of the UK tournaments (including the official GW event) because it is within the rules.

I honestly don't understand the confusion, the debate comes from whether you should swap weapons or not and that concerns the spirt of the game and the intention behind the rules which is something you seem absolutely adamant to ignore.

_________________
Finished 2nd in the 2014 GBHL. My Wife's so proud

Free SBG fanzine: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29569

I dunno buddy, 1st in the league without an axe in sight says there's still hope for us!

_________________
Finished 2nd in the 2014 GBHL. My Wife's so proud

Free SBG fanzine: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29569

#gloat

So does my post prove that it is legal or not? I was hoping for some more feedback on my breakdown.

_________________
My trade thread
http://www.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=25957&p=325932#p325932

What I am saying is that it’s the special strike rules themselves that are causing the problem as they are unbalanced. People once converted models for fun and be praised for doing so. Now many conversions are tainted with the stigma of cheating to get advantage.

As Gondorian Captain said, the rules need to be updated regarding who can use what weapons (not just the generic hand weapon entry) or, and my preference, get rid of special strikes altogether.

You are talking about the rules for conversion as if it is the problem. My point is that the conversion issue is a symptom of the real problem, the problem being the poorly written and implemented special strike rules. Remove them (or at least fix them so they are better balanced) and no one cares if you have an axe or sword or chicken leg etc.

_________________
I think a drug habbit would be cheaper...

This is of course more of a thoretical debate than one taken from any of my own experiences, I have only played with special strikes a very few times only with my brothers, I really like special strikes, they add to the game in my opinion. This is not a serious matter for me, nor do I feel very strongly about it. I just wnted to get some more info on what hte rules actually said about it.



I am sorry about this comment. I respect everyones opnion on here and it was wrong of me to make this comment. It was not meant to be antagonistic.
However, I have also taken time to write pretty long posts (as well as Hodush) where I have taken time to check rules, faqs and examples from other games even to understand the question I originally asked "Where in the rules can you find support for weapon swapps/addons". James R was nice to point me to the section where support could be found, I read it, gave some counter arguments as I found it very questionable if that was really what the RAW of it said. Here Hodush also came with some wonderful arguments, also based on the rules.
After this nobody actually tried to counter our arguments at all, nor did it feel like they were taken seriously, and I admit I got frustrated byt it and so this comment was made.

This is also the reason why I said that there seem to be an unwillingness to discuss this, the thread has been very polite however (with the exception of my latest post).



Yes it is my opnion I agree. However the opposite is neither written anywhere in the rulebook.
I base this opnion on the fact that conversions are not covered by the rules at all. Conversions has been left out of the rules section which (in theory but very seldom in practise) makes them hard to judge what is right and wrong. Many times it is very obvoius what is right and is seldom a problem. We dont want conversions to disapear from the game. They are a big part of the hobby after all.
An unwritten rule that many would agree on is that a conversion should not be made to give you any ingame advantages (yes opninion again but a widely accepted one in my experience), a troll lying down so he cant be seen behind friendly troops or low walls is an example.
In circumstances such a these a common solution is to campre the converted model with the original, would the original troll be seen behind the wall?
This is mostly the argument I base my opinion about conversions on.



Yes, this is the same argument that James R gave, both me and Hodush have given some counterarguments (original model etc) to this but not really gotten any answers or opinions about it.
A note about the model I found is P.9
"Models and Bases"
"Every hero, warrior or monster is represented by a citadel miniature, or model. This model represents the character or creature troughtout the battle"
So a Warrior of Minas Tirith model is armed with a sword, that is the proper representation of him, that is his model. Lets say I would use an axe on him, is this the correct way of representing him, no beacuse this model would operate diffrent from the original one. He would have rules that never would have been asociated with the original profil or model.
Now lets say I wanted to use a warrior of Arnor with a sword conversion to use as a warrior of Minas Tirith, the model would be wrong but the effect on the game would be the same as the original model. In my mind this makes it a legal conversion, kinda like giving heroes horses. Both would have rules asociated with the profil the model represents.
This is of course how I would interpret this rules and I could be wrong.


I believe there can be two seperated debates, one for if you SHOULD, and one for if you CAN.
As you say the "should" part does indeed concern spirit of the game but the CAN part, RAW, can be adiffrent debate.

have fun
slaktarn

_________________
Swedish gamer?
Drop me a message!

The older rules allowed Heroes to pick up any piece of equipment that an enemy they had slain was carrying, meaning -for example- Gimli could pick up the shield from an Uruk-hai (and thus gain the defence bonus) -or even a crossbow. This isn't possible anymore -sadly- but it would've been an interesting point to add to this debate if it still was. :p

I'm surprised neither side of this debate has brought up this little bit of info from the Hobbit FAQ:



Now, what's interesting here is that the answer is not that you can't put different hand weapons on a model. What it does state is that you cannot equip a model with more than one hand weapon -unless a special rule allows a model to carry more than one hand weapon.

Now, this allows for some interesting deduction:

-GW does not forbid you to swap weapons. If this wasn't allowed, this would have been mentioned in this answer.
-If a special rule allows a model to carry more than one hand weapon, it would be allowed to perform various special strikes, Hunter Orcs being an example. If they could only carry two of the same hand weapons, eg, two swords, there would be no need to mention that they can carry multiple hand weapons, because it would have no effect on which special strikes they can use. If I were to model a Hunter Orc to carry both a sword and an axe, I would be able to choose between Feint and Piercing Strike, as per the "Many Blades" rule.

Another thing I want to point out is that people here mentioned Iron Guard wielding both swords and axes. However, their axes appear -to me at least- to be throwing axes -yes, also the ones they hold in their hands. Since they also do not have a special rule that allows for them to have more than one hand weapon, this would mean they wouldn't be able to use Piercing Strike. However, the few times I've played against Iron Guard using special strikes, the player controlling them would tell me he thought they were in fact hand weapons. Rather than argue about it, I agreed, as I believed he would have been able to swap out the swords for axes anyway.

This leads me to believe that Dr. Grant is on the right side of the argument -it is perfectly legal to swap weapons. Whether or not it's the right thing to do, that's something else. I'm not going to go and randomly start swapping weapons, in fact, most players in my area don't even bother with special strikes because we feel they slow down the game.

@grashnar Oh the old days! Not that I used it that much, but it was always a fun thought.

You raise some good points there and I can understand the conclusion you come to, but it depends on the angle you read it.

Firstly, GW answers some FAQ's which are so simple to understand and shouldn't need clarification, stupid questions of obvious intent to break the rules or things which are really irrelevant to the current game, I don't understand how they could be that frequently asked. Added to that are a swathe of entirely or incompletely answered questions, one example I can think of is the mumak and trample with heroic march, drums etc. The mumak actually doesn't even have a move value. I have made the point in a mumak thread you can clearly argue for the mumak to move at literally any time you choose to move it and still be following the rules. So just because GW doesn't say no, doesn't cover all bases.

Does GW forbid weapon swaps? Their answer will always be no, as they want people to convert things and buy more products of theirs and not of a competitors brand which can be used as a proxy, that is their aim in answering those questions. So we aren't going to get a straight answer which covers everything.
back to this question, the way I read it, it is saying no, you can't gain a benefit from converting unless they pay for it as an upgrade. They say no. "No" they only have 1 weapon (IE what they come with out of the box), unless there is an option to upgrade it, otherwise it's outside the game.

The hunter orcs example is a good one, it clearly comes across to me that they want to promote the hunter orcs in the answer, not that it is particularly helpful to us. Anyway, it still warrants an answer.
"Models only carry a single hand weapon" ie they only physically hold a single hand weapon, that is 1 hand with a weapon in it on the model, you cannot add on additional weapons for them to hold and thereby expect to get a bonus. The models not holding swords/daggers are all holding their weapons with, you guessed it, both hands, making it a 2h weapon. (None of the hunter orcs even have sheaths! but thats another problem...)
and to finish off:
"Hunter Orcs carry a variety of long knives, wicked swords and other, stranger weapons into battle." Yes it says strange weapons (specifically a reference for the 2h weapon sculpts), but it pretty much says they use swords or long knives... anything that feints, not a mixture of swords, axes, clubs, staffs and so on. So really, its not allowing changes to be made, its just saying that they don't always use swords as sometime they are using 2h weapons

The above pretty much means your second point shouldn't happen, but I want to talk about it anyway. As a general principle, GW models units which have 2A as having weapons in both hands (any heroes being the exception so you can make different poses while still giving them the required wargear). Examples include reavers, watcher, IG, ferals, morgul stalkers.

The exceptions are beserkers (obviously GW has to stick to the movie weapons), mirkwood rangers and wood elf sentinels. The rangers come with bows, so modeling them shooting a bow while holding knives isn't going to look as nice and the sentinels also have the bow, have 2 hands holding something leaving just they guy with the horn, which clearly is there for the special rule.

To wrap it all up, just because it doesn't say you can't doesn't mean you can. Like was said earlier, it doesn't say I can't throw someone's model off the table. It's a stupid concept really, but it shows that you have to apply the same logic to everything.

****

As we discuss this, some rules begin to make more sense in the way they impact the game. And sometimes not...
The Iron Guard clearly state they use throwing axes and swords. So following my logical reading of the rules, combined with the FAQ's I would pretty much be forced to say that those axes are for throwing only, not for piercing strike. The question becomes, can you use ranged weapons in melee? Erestor is able to use his yet the rulebooks says you cannot. Confusion! And here I was thinking it's ok for Rohan guys with spears, not that it makes any difference these days, but maybe it should have been a -1 back in the day.
Reavers aren't given any fluff, so they would have to take sword type weapons only, as is modeled on the original corsair from which the reaver comes.

_________________
My trade thread
http://www.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=25957&p=325932#p325932

It's legal, yes, but is it right? This whole thing comes down to gaming ethics.

Only time I condone weapon swaps is if it's keeping in theme of that particular model. If I came across someone in a tournament with say, an elven or Minas Tirith army, and they had converted all their regular troops to have axes. I would probably give them negative marks in the sportsmanship for blatant power gaming. It makes no sense in terms of theme for those factions.

@Hodush - "and other, stranger weapons into battle". That's too ambiguous a term to say that just because it's lumped in with "various long knives and swords" that it automatically means it's referring to knives or swords. If so, then it should say "other, stranger swords or knives" rather than the broader "weapons".

One could also argue that because it's talking about that in the hand weapons entry and that you have to pay extra for the two-handed weapons that it's specifically talking about hand weapons.

It's all nitty gritty though and countless counter arguments could be made, and if people are swapping out those fantastically sculpted weapons and putting some generic, unfitting weapons, then what a waste of a good mini. You're going to end up having needless arguments and putting people in bad moods ruining whatever fun you should be having. Winning should not be the only way someone has fun (whether it be a tournament or a casual game), and if so, they should seriously re-evaluate their perspective of the entire game (thankfully those sorts of people are few and far between).

As I opened with, it all comes down to gaming ethics.

_________________
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like half of you half as well as you deserve.