Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Aside from the Leman Russ "are sponsons worth it?" debate, this could be the biggest hot button issue for many IG players.
What can represent carapace armor?
If playing WYSIWYG, is it ok to give an officer carapace armor?
Many people have taken opposing and in my opinion, equally vaild viewpoints on this issue. I always play WYSIWYG, but you could easily make the following arguments for someone being able to take the carapace armor special equipment for say, Valhallans, and I'm on the fence on this issue.
- Look at some of the other models that "have" carapace armor- cmon, that does NOT look like carapace armor (IE Commissar Yarrick, old stormtroopers, etc.)
- You could just say it's a high tech kind of flak armor- it says in the codex that the armor can vary in appearance.
- Your models otherwise are incredibly restricted- no officers unless you use the stormtrooper sergeant, no heavy weapons, no a lot of things.
- The only models you could use come with hellguns, not lasguns if you're being WYSIWYG- do you expect someone to convert EVERY SINGLE model in their range? That would be ludicrously expensive and time consuming. Do we really need more time and/or money spent on IG? They're already the most demanding army in both respects.
Last edited by ^Heavy Support^; August 14th, 2005 at 13:36.
I don't use the doctorine myself, but when I upgrade my Officers etc. I don't add anything, I just say he has Carapace, and add the points. No one has ever questioned it. I think as long as you play Cadians, you could say that they have Carapace. I'm not sure what a Tournament official would say, but at our GW local store, that is fine.
"A love for tradition has never weakened a nation, indeed it has strengthened nations in their hour of peril."
Sir Winston Churchil
for the WYSISYG issue about carapace armor I would say that since every guard infantry unit must take it I'd let you get away with saying that the flak vests that they are wearing have just been upgraded with better materials. So it would look exactly the same and since everybody has to have it it stills looks uniform. This is also pretty realistic since different materials have different properties yet can be the same shape and size. Yeah its kinda a work around so you dont have to model every unit with some extra armor but Id rather have the flexability to try different doctrines than be forced to stick to one since that how the model looks. for the most part WYSIWYG is a good idea but I dont have a problem with saying that all of your regular looking guys have better armor than all of my regular looking guys since your guys have armor that is made from better material than mine.
I don't like it when people just try and claim Cadian armour is carapace armour, and I don't think many tournaments do either. Carapace armour, as it's name suggests, is significantly bigger and bulkier than normal armour.
But it depends on what kind of game your playing, if you're doing a friendly game or just testing it out too see how it affects the way the army plays, or something like that, then I probably wouldn't worry about it.
I think the best compromise is sticking/green stuffing extra bits of plating/padding onto plastic guardsmen. Provided the result looks even a little bit bulkier, and is distinct from flak armour, I see no problem at all, and it could be quite cheap, especially if you just buy plasticard or something rather than using bits of other models.
Last edited by The_Giant_Mantis; August 14th, 2005 at 16:38.
for the IG that dont have visible armour(valhallans and the like), you could say that the armour is under the uniform, hidden from view.
ultramarines 3rd company-2130
armoured company in progress
I think the images of different regiment in the IG codex says a lot about carapace armour.
Compare the drawing of a Cadian Shock trooper (page 58, top) with the one of the Harkoni Warhawk (page 61, top). The Harkoni trooper has armour on his legs and arms, so if you modled a cadian model to have armour on those parts, I'd say it was ok, but I wouldnt count a regular cadian models as wearing carapace.
However, GW might not agree with me on this, look at the painted Harkoni Warhawk on page 31. Its a regular cadian model painted in the Harkoni colours... either you can interpret that as "GW does it, so its legal to count cadians as wearing carapace" or you could interpret is as "using the full list to without doctrines... is perfectly representative of any number of regiments..." (page 55, just above the bullet points) or you could just conclude "GW didnt really think that through and it doesnt justify or explain anything", I lean towards the last one.
I dont like the "he's wearing armour under his greatcoat" theory either, to me, the storm trooper models (not the Kasrkin) look as if they're weaing a jumpsuit over some bulky armour, and the Valhallans just look as if they're wearing a big coat.
The whole "better materials" things is also suspect, the doctrine explanation says "Sometimes this will be conventional carapace armour, alternatively it may be bulky feral platemail". To me this suggests that that a model has to wear more armour, then a regular guardsman. The way I see it, a cadian model only counts as wearing flak armour because his armour doesnt proctect a large part of him (see above about the Harkoni), a Valhallan counts his heavy coat as flak armour, it doenst offer as much protection as the cadian armour, but it covers more of the man. You can probably find similar explanations for all the regiments, even the catachans can be rationalised by saying that the armour isnt really armour but more a toughness increase represented by an armour save (although to me, the models were clearly designed to be 6+ armour save "jungle fighters").
As for wargear for characters, I think carapace armour should be represented on the model, same goes for weapons and the like, otherwise there's no point in the rest of the army being WYSIWYG.
One point that no one has really addressed is that GW has made models that clearly are not sporting carapace armor, yet are "equipped" with carapace (Commissar Yarrick, old storm troopers) How can this be justified? Doesn't this show that you don't have to have it on the model?
If i give on of my officers carapace via wargear (never use carapace doctrine), no one makes a fuss if his carapace looks like a flak jacket.
but if you wanted to be certain, just paint his flak jacket a metalic color (assuming your normal guys don't have metalic colored flak jackets) and say it's a "reinforced" flak jacket or something.
as for Yarrik and other people who have 4+ saves but don't look like it. it's just a case of "style" over function. the guy making the model thought it'd look better w/out a bulky piece of armor.
anyone who gets that picky needs an old carnifex to the head.
and as for using cadian plastics as carapaced troops. as long as you don't use them as 4+ and 5+ in the same army, it should be ok. alot of DH players use cadian plastics as Inq. Storm Troopers.
In response to Gorbass' use of the regiments in the back of the codex to define what carapace lloks like, the Terrax guardsman has carapace and appears to be wearing less than a cadian (no helmet, small shoulderpads). However, it does look reinforced.
I use the carapace doctrine and i just use cadians but i only play friendly games.
They shall be my Imperial Guard and they shall know some fear...
pg 31 of the codex. The Cadian 180th have armour that looks like its a metal shell. That could count as carapace because it does not look like flak armor, even though it is. It just depends on the pain job.