Reavers have a Carapace mount too.

_________________
Fire bad, tree pretty - Buffy

Yes, they have a carapace weapon hard point, but there is no "Carapace" location on the hit template.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart

Hi!

What do you mean? Do you need to know on what facing the carapace can be seen?

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules

What I mean is that there is no "Carapace" hit location on any of the hit templates for either the Reaver or Warhound.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart

Tis true, it's something I've noted but never got around to grumbling about. I think the real question is, should there be a carapace location for these models? Would this benefit the model or just make them easier to hit. Perhaps an armour save or damage table modification would be better.

_________________
My head is full of War...

[img]http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk120/Warhead40k/Tyranid%20Swarm/DSC02262.jpg[/img]

I've thought about that, too. However, if you look at the Warhound, there really isn't a way to hit the carapace. From the front the head covers up most of the carapace, from behind the reactor does the same thing and from the side the weapon covers up the carapace. The Reaver might be a different story. From the front the head and weapon cover up most of the carapace and from the back the weapon and reactor. From the side, you could argue that the carapace could be hit, specifically behind the weapon.

One other thing to consider is: what happens when a weapon has been blown off? For both the Warhound and Reaver, you could argue that without a weapon there, the carapace could be hit from the side or back and thus the MIU can be damaged. That might be something to consider as an optional rule.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart

Very true, and all points I noted at the time also.

One other thing to consider is: what happens when a weapon has been blown off? For both the Warhound and Reaver, you could argue that without a weapon there, the carapace could be hit from the side or back and thus the MIU can be damaged. That might be something to consider as an optional rule.

_________________
My head is full of War...

[img]http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk120/Warhead40k/Tyranid%20Swarm/DSC02262.jpg[/img]

Yes, leave it as is. Trying to account for parts that have been shot off adds a level of complexity that I don't particularly want. Although, it might make for some interesting optional/experimental rules.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart

It might be fun as house rules but as mentioned it would get very complicated very quickly. Especially for large complex models like an Imperator Titan or Mega Gargant.

_________________
Sofa General

Nobody expects the Inquisition!!!
http://theepiclounge.wordpress.com/

I found my old thread for convenience. notice how there was already a discussion about the lack of a carapace hit location.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart

I have been thinking about the d10 and what it does to titans.

If you take the warhound for example.

As I see it you get a unit for 200-300 that it alot better than the different superheavys the guards can choose from. How much firepower will it take to bring down the warhound compared to 4 tanks or a superheavy if you do a point comparison

Now with this d10 you make them and the other titans even better.
You will probably see more titans. Not a bad thing. Titans are loads of fun.
Should a titan cost more if you use the d10?

In the end it is just an optional rule but I am both abit terrified that it will do to the balance and also feel like I would like to try it.

/P

_________________
"Take me to the Brig. I want to see the "real Marines". " Major General Chesty Puller, USMC