Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I haven't played much since 2018. Around 6 years ago I bought half a FW reaver titan on ebay, and since I now have a 3D printer I was going to make up the missing pieces. I went to look up their rules for weapons, and boom, therefore is only ONE weapon option for the Carapace. Even with the "no model, no rules" kick GW is on this seems harsh. Do you think anyone would care if it had one of the other Warhound weapons, like it has traditionally been able to?

No, they can take any carapace option, last i checked.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
No, they can take any carapace option, last i checked.

I was checking on wahapedia, so there might be an inaccurate listing.

I found a copy of the Imperial Armor Compendium 9th Edition. The Reaver did, indeed, lose all carapace options other than the missile launcher, and also lost the Chainfist.

The Warlord also lost all carapace options other than the missiles and Laser blasters.

GW removed a ton of FW options with the 9th Ed update. Avengers, for example, lost the ability to take any weapons at all on their hardpoints.

I'd guess GW doesn't really want you using FW models in 40K, so the rules are just kinda halfassed.

 catbarf wrote:
GW removed a ton of FW options with the 9th Ed update. Avengers, for example, lost the ability to take any weapons at all on their hardpoints.

I'd guess GW doesn't really want you using FW models in 40K, so the rules are just kinda halfassed.

Yeah, that kinda stinks considering I bought a turret from the Primaris Redoubt bunker thing, as it is a 2-barrelled turbolaser that fits perfectly into the carapace mount of my other FW Reaver.

Seriously though, if anyone throws a tissy about weapons swaps in any game that includes titans, you likely shouldn't be playing with them anyway. I do just wish it was totally a legal option though.

It doesn't just fit perfectly, that's what the part was designed as. Making it into a realm of battle tile fortification and not letting you buy it separately always annoyed me.

Honestly I just wish it was realistically possible to use the damn things. A warhound is really cool but is not by any stretch of the imagination a 2000 point army, especially with no faction traits or stratagem.

If you want to use large models I'd highly recommend the actual Apocalypse ruleset. They are designed to run large battles with large models, are fun and work really well.

Also I just checked and Reavers have 6 weapon options for the carapace :-)

 WisdomLS wrote:
If you want to use large models I'd highly recommend the actual Apocalypse ruleset. They are designed to run large battles with large models, are fun and work really well.

Also I just checked and Reavers have 6 weapon options for the carapace :-)

where are you checking, as I don't think there is any rules set newer than the 9th edition compendium.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 WisdomLS wrote:
If you want to use large models I'd highly recommend the actual Apocalypse ruleset. They are designed to run large battles with large models, are fun and work really well.

Also I just checked and Reavers have 6 weapon options for the carapace :-)

where are you checking, as I don't think there is any rules set newer than the 9th edition compendium.

"Apocalypse" is now a side game loosely based on the Epic rules, it isn't just a large game of 40k anymore. (It's all right, but it's too dependent on stratagem card decks and because it's based on Epic it ends up taking more time to get models out and put them away than it does to play a game.)

To provide a contrary viewpoint, I actually enjoy the Apoc rules more than 9th currently. They are great! Only problem is they aren't actively supported so players who have new models don't have data sheets.