RE: [Epic] Titan weapon slots

From: John <slaann_at_...>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 18:59:50 -0600

At 08:31 PM 2/19/97 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Excerpts from Epic: 19-Feb-97 RE: [Epic] Titan weapon slots by John_at_...
>[snip -- see below]
>> Wake up.
>
>Let me deal with this first: I think you need to calm down a bit;

  He sounds pretty calm to me.


>tossing around insults on house rules is not a very good way to act,
>IMO. Maybe I need to as well, in this case, but that snipe just riled
>me. 'Nuff said.

    Maybe YOU should calm down.

>
>Now then:
>
>> Think about guys - Carapace multi lasers are for titan defense there short
>> range and no sv mod implies they are defense against infantry. Surely you
>> are not suggesting that titans are only charged by infantry from the rear.
>
>Certainly not. However, the rest of a Titan's weaponry is front 180
>(or, in AT rules, 135 degrees right/left or front 90 degrees) so having
>the CMLs cover the rear isn't such a stretch IMO. For that matter, I
>think the description in the Space Marine Battles book said they were
>rear 180. Point taken but...

>> In the orignal rules titans could mount more than two weapons on the
>> carapace.
>
>Wrong. Adeptus Titanicus manual, page 35: "Each Titan has four weapon
>mounts: Right Arm, Left Arm, Right Carapace and Left Carapace." Umm I do beg to differ. Yes the manual state each titan has four weapon mounts, RA,LA,RC,LC.,...yet it also states that each of those four mounts carries four (if I remember) hard points. With CC weapons being 3hrdpnts and heavy weapons being 2hrdpnts. (i.e. two heavy weapons per location) I would consider more than one weapon per mounting location to be more than a potential two weapons on the carapace.

 Only
>the Banelord Titan can mount a major weapon on its rear carapace mounts,
>and that's because it can't mount anything in the forward (regular) ones.
>
>>GW made the titan (plastic) with 4 slots for mounting
>> weapons/banners/control towers and the like.
>
>Partially right, anyway. Banners, yes. Until GW clarified, I also saw
>people mounting Fire Control Towers and Carapace Landing Pads on the
>banner mounts, but they said no to that. (I think it's in one of the
>17x WD Q&As.) possible
>
>> If the positioning bothers you... consider the Warp and Harpoon
>Missile bits. > These were clearly made to mount under not on the
>carapace. Now some whiners > out there say that its wrong (blah blah
>blah) since new rules say missiles
>> are carapace (on) mount only. I don't think so.
>
>New rules? Hardly. Adeptus Titanicus, page 36: "Support missiles may
>only be mounted on the carapace of a Titan." And don't try to say that
>the arms are the carapace; AT makes a very clear distinction between the
>arm and carapace mounts. Support missiles have *never* been allowed on
>the arms; that's just something that they left out in the transition
>from AT to Space Marine I was not referring to the rules on this. I believe I made a specific reference to mini itself. The warp missile when mounted on the carapace is upside down.
>
>All the orientation of the Imperial Eagles means is that the game
>designers didn't communicate with the artists very well.
>
get real ,.... What about assault troops & jump packs. Marines cannot depart from Thawk with jump packs - Most artwork of that nature shows such a departure. Hasn't the CJ released an orky detachment card which now allows blood axe troops with jump/rocket packs to leap from a Thawk?? Explain.

   Orientation of EAGLES? Give me a break. The whole titan bit is CLEARLY
meant to
   go UNDER the Carapace. As for designers, which is easier, change the rule, or
   retool and make the damn things right. GW's response, neither. YOU can mount
   your missles upside down but I and quite a few others (some of whom are
on this
   list) think that the current titan missile variants look stupid upside
down on
    the top of the carapace.


                                             Keith

Amen to That.
jd
Received on Fri Feb 21 1997 - 00:59:50 UTC