Does it seem like the FW office wrote the rules and did the CAD work then distribution is handled by GW proper? It’s available throughout the GW site and through the GW distribution channel coming from their production line. That’s why it’s plastic.

 Overread wrote:
Imperator is big and likely would easily start to hit the near £100 model bracket. So I figure we won't see one for a long while yet, AT needs a lot more of its core game out, perhaps even as far as Chaos and Xenos before GW can consider building something that big and expensive.

Head Designer was on stream saying they plan to bring new titans to life before they do xenos, and xenos before epic. So, take that as you want.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Hi! Stupid question: These new sprues are plastic?

Since when are FW doing plastic expansions? And why did Necromunda get them? I hate resin...

Forge World are now part of the Specialist Games Studio. It's difficult from an outside point of view to say where one begins and the other ends, I suspect part of this expansion involved moving experienced FW staff on to supervisory roles in the dept so they're now the gin in the tonic.

Upshot being that FW doesn't do plastic, but SGS does.

I'm curious if it's possible to make a Frankenstein monster out of those Cerastus knight kit by mix and match arms.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Hi! Stupid question: These new sprues are plastic?

Since when are FW doing plastic expansions? And why did Necromunda get them? I hate resin...

Economy of scale. Most all titanicus players will buy one or more of these sprues, since they provide both awesome cosmetic variants, but commonly used weapons for a handful of models. Compare Necromunda, where weapons upgrades are split among 6 gangs so far, cutting the customer base for each sprue.

 cole1114 wrote:
I'd rather get lucius versions of models before getting an imperator. I vastly prefer lucius titans to mars ones, the boxier look is just... satisfying.

I hate to be the bearer of ill tidings, but they've said they want to focus on new models and add ons rather than do a different style of the same Titan.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Hi! Stupid question: These new sprues are plastic?

Since when are FW doing plastic expansions? And why did Necromunda get them? I hate resin...

Andy Hoare said at one of the open days that it was always planned to be in resin, then when the game went to the GW forecasting team they said that it would be too popular for resin production to keep up so it should be moved to plastic, this resulted in one of the delays to the release of AT.

 Looky Likey wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Hi! Stupid question: These new sprues are plastic?

Since when are FW doing plastic expansions? And why did Necromunda get them? I hate resin...

Andy Hoare said at one of the open days that it was always planned to be in resin, then when the game went to the GW forecasting team they said that it would be too popular for resin production to keep up so it should be moved to plastic, this resulted in one of the delays to the release of AT.

I believe it was also due to the fact that when AT started it was a resin sideproject, but then GW had a big shift in attitude toward their specialist games in moving them from an expensive corner of Forgeworld to the mainstream in plastic. This makes a huge difference to advertising, marketing and sales because highstreet plastic and normal distribution chain means it gets a lot more attention; whilst FW only is limited in market right from the onset (remember some clubs have only one or two bits of FW kicking around; they are not buying whole armies or games from there)

 Overread wrote:

 Looky Likey wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Hi! Stupid question: These new sprues are plastic?

Since when are FW doing plastic expansions? And why did Necromunda get them? I hate resin...

Andy Hoare said at one of the open days that it was always planned to be in resin, then when the game went to the GW forecasting team they said that it would be too popular for resin production to keep up so it should be moved to plastic, this resulted in one of the delays to the release of AT.

I believe it was also due to the fact that when AT started it was a resin sideproject, but then GW had a big shift in attitude toward their specialist games in moving them from an expensive corner of Forgeworld to the mainstream in plastic. This makes a huge difference to advertising, marketing and sales because highstreet plastic and normal distribution chain means it gets a lot more attention; whilst FW only is limited in market right from the onset (remember some clubs have only one or two bits of FW kicking around; they are not buying whole armies or games from there)

Has to be remembered that there will eventually be resin upgrade sets for the Titans at some point, they've indicated that the Reavers Warp Missile for instance will likely be in resin.

Yep they did say some weapons would come in resin, likely the kind of weapon limited to 1 per army or a one-shot-wonder type weapon. Ergo things that are very exotic and not standard issue

 Overread wrote:

 Looky Likey wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Hi! Stupid question: These new sprues are plastic?

Since when are FW doing plastic expansions? And why did Necromunda get them? I hate resin...

Andy Hoare said at one of the open days that it was always planned to be in resin, then when the game went to the GW forecasting team they said that it would be too popular for resin production to keep up so it should be moved to plastic, this resulted in one of the delays to the release of AT.

I believe it was also due to the fact that when AT started it was a resin sideproject, but then GW had a big shift in attitude toward their specialist games in moving them from an expensive corner of Forgeworld to the mainstream in plastic.

This is restating what I said, except missing out that Forecasting caused that big shift because they predicted big sales for the game.It would never have become plastic if it wasn't predicted to sell well, and Andy would never have been given the extra time and money to develop the game into what it became without that support.

Obviously shifting it into plastic helps sales further, but it already was going to be a massive seller according to the Forecasting team.

I wonder where that line was.

Big sales in resin is one thing, because I’m guessing it’s relative. For instance, I don’t have a Heresy Army, because I find the tank prices too much, and I really don’t like working with resin,

Plastic? Higher start up costs for sure. But as a medium, it’s got a wider appeal, and a better price point (or is at least perceived to be). The finished models are also somewhat less fragile than resin, so people may be happier to transport it.

I guess what I’m getting at is where is the tipping point? If you project you’ll sell say, 100 in Resin but 150 in plastic, is that cost effective enough to greenlight the base cost of plastic? As ever, these are just numbers out my bum for illustrative purposes only

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I wonder where that line was.

Big sales in resin is one thing, because I’m guessing it’s relative. For instance, I don’t have a Heresy Army, because I find the tank prices too much, and I really don’t like working with resin,

Plastic? Higher start up costs for sure. But as a medium, it’s got a wider appeal, and a better price point (or is at least perceived to be). The finished models are also somewhat less fragile than resin, so people may be happier to transport it.

I guess what I’m getting at is where is the tipping point? If you project you’ll sell say, 100 in Resin but 150 in plastic, is that cost effective enough to greenlight the base cost of plastic? As ever, these are just numbers out my bum for illustrative purposes only

There will be formulae. Maybe ask a resin producer on the forum (Mierce has a big thread, I haven't been in a while but the manufacturer did used to be quite active there).

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I wonder where that line was.

Because making anything non 40k/AoS is a risk to be flop like Dreadfleet. Especially for a big game like AT, the size and the amount of sprue need to make just a mono option Warlord already prove to be far more costly than the other Specialist Games at launch. They was very skeptical about going full plastic with this. But once they realized that their customer will be the one that spent thousand of dollar on 1 titan, and they wouldn't mind spending half of that for a full titans army, they take the risk and go all in with the plastic prodcution.

GW's tipping point for going to plastic is likely lower than most other manufacturers, as GW make their own plastics. They don't have to wait in Renedra's queue or go to China.

I'm not sure I agree with the odd assertion that the audience for Adeptus Titanicus is "people who buy 40k-scale titans". An Adeptus Titanicus force is no more expensive than an army for 40k or Age of Sigmar, after all.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
GW's tipping point for going to plastic is likely lower than most other manufacturers, as GW make their own plastics. They don't have to wait in Renedra's queue or go to China.

I'm not sure I agree with the odd assertion that the audience for Adeptus Titanicus is "people who buy 40k-scale titans". An Adeptus Titanicus force is no more expensive than an army for 40k or Age of Sigmar, after all.

Because you don't expect 40k players pay 110USD for a not-knight that they can't use in any game but this game, while they could just use that money to buy a 40k force instead. For a new game the entry cost of this game is high. Also you have to consider that someone also spent similar amount of money for his Titan force, so you can at least have 1 person that you can game with, assuming that they all make their own terrains so they don't have to spend even more.

Or maybe I was wrong and it's actually the Epic community lurking in the shadow for decade, only to come out and bought multiple copies of GM edtion causing it to sold out on the webstore. Or maybe some millionaire bought many GM boxes,... Which ever theories you prefer, in the end, GW did make a profit with this game.

Chopstick wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
GW's tipping point for going to plastic is likely lower than most other manufacturers, as GW make their own plastics. They don't have to wait in Renedra's queue or go to China.

I'm not sure I agree with the odd assertion that the audience for Adeptus Titanicus is "people who buy 40k-scale titans". An Adeptus Titanicus force is no more expensive than an army for 40k or Age of Sigmar, after all.

Because you don't expect 40k players pay 110USD for a not-knight that they can't use in any game but this game, while they could just use that money to buy a 40k force instead. For a new game the entry cost of this game is high.

Or maybe I was wrong and it's actually the Epic community lurking in the shadow for decade, only to come out and bought multiple copies of GM edtion causing it to sold out on the webstore. Or maybe some millionaire bought many GM boxes,... Which ever theories you prefer, in the end, GW did make a profit with this game.

Eh? WJat are you saying? That the success of AT is definitely either Epic oldschoolers or the Uberwealthy? And why would you expect 40K players to buy only 40K minis? Sorry dude I think you have it all wrong.

Chopstick wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
GW's tipping point for going to plastic is likely lower than most other manufacturers, as GW make their own plastics. They don't have to wait in Renedra's queue or go to China.

I'm not sure I agree with the odd assertion that the audience for Adeptus Titanicus is "people who buy 40k-scale titans". An Adeptus Titanicus force is no more expensive than an army for 40k or Age of Sigmar, after all.

Because you don't expect 40k players pay 110USD for a not-knight that they can't use in any game but this game...

Speak for yourself mate but I routinely put money in to figures from other game systems. If only I could use those Gripping Beast Vikings in games of 40K, damn...

I play 40k and AOS...and used to play Epic like a madman. My friends and I bought 3 GMs, 12 Reavers and 4 Warhound boxes. So yeah, there is demand. I still want 3 more Warlords, another 2-3 Reavers and maybe 1 more Warhound box...whatever I think Xestobiax could use. I plan on buying 2-3 boxes/packages of each Knight variant and weapon kit too.

So yes, there is demand for this product. I am likely also part of their unknown demographic as I mostly play Darklands and board games...ditto for my group. So how many more of us 40+ gamers who played AT and Epic back then are back? I would guess lots.

Chopstick wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I wonder where that line was.

Because making anything non 40k/AoS that’s really crappy is a risk to be flop like Dreadfleet.

Fixed.

Dreadfleet was like opening a bag of Doritos and finding nothing but crumbs.

Yeah I've no idea where this "only Mr Richie Rich Owns a Titan Maniple For 40K is the target for AT" is coming from. Quite the reverse, most of the people I see collecting AT, myself included, are people who could never justify the cost of FW's lovely but giant, impractical, and rarely actually used in a game Titans.

In fact, I'd wager a fair few of the folk who were annoyed at the prospect of the upgrade sets being bundled with new engines fell into that camp, and found AT appealing before because it allows them to spend the equivalent of a modest 40K army on a single Maniple of Titans, and then spend a wee bit more than that on upgrades and magnets to give that one force of models the flexibility in builds and playstyle equivalent to several 40K armies.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
GW's tipping point for going to plastic is likely lower than most other manufacturers, as GW make their own plastics. They don't have to wait in Renedra's queue or go to China.

I'm not sure I agree with the odd assertion that the audience for Adeptus Titanicus is "people who buy 40k-scale titans". An Adeptus Titanicus force is no more expensive than an army for 40k or Age of Sigmar, after all.

I feel like many in the community haven't properly gotten their heads around the pricing for AT. You can get the rules and a very solid 1500 point maniple for $335 retail. With a 15% discount, you're at about $285.

Rules set $60
Warlord $110
Reaver $60
2 Warhounds $65
3 Knights $35
=$335

Yeah, there are people buying whole legion-sized forces, but what I posted there is enough to play a medium-sized game and have fun doing it. You also have some room to add another Reaver and fill an Axiom maniple, which should then clock in around 1850 points, I believe.

Regarding terrain, everyone's tables are works in progress. Most of us didn't start playing 40K or WHFB on gorgeous, finished tables. It took time to build them up, and until we did we used whatever we had. Same goes for AT.

The cost issue will also come down on its own as GW releases more knight and Reaver style models. Yes Warlords and other big titans will always feature, but when you can get into the game for a cheap rules pack and couple of boxes of knights and warhounds then the price comes down a lot for getting into the game.

GW might even release a getting started pack with a Reaver, warhounds, rules and knights in a box for standard getting starting rates

 Yodhrin wrote:
Yeah I've no idea where this "only Mr Richie Rich Owns a Titan Maniple For 40K is the target for AT" is coming from. Quite the reverse, most of the people I see collecting AT, myself included, are people who could never justify the cost of FW's lovely but giant, impractical, and rarely actually used in a game Titans.

In fact, I'd wager a fair few of the folk who were annoyed at the prospect of the upgrade sets being bundled with new engines fell into that camp, and found AT appealing before because it allows them to spend the equivalent of a modest 40K army on a single Maniple of Titans, and then spend a wee bit more than that on upgrades and magnets to give that one force of models the flexibility in builds and playstyle equivalent to several 40K armies.

Pretty much this.

Sure, the Warlord itself is quite the cash sink. £65 from GW, £48.75 from Darksphere, £55.25 from Element. If you want multiples, that gets steep fairly fast.

Thankfully, the game has little call to rely solely on the powerhouse ones. Mixed maniples are where the real experience lies. Add in magnets, and it actually becomes fairly cost effective once you’ve shelled out for the hulls. Spesh as it’s the weapon loadouts that bring the variety.

It’s not a game solely for those with the deepest pockets at all.

Honestly if you look at armies like Tyrands now then you can easily pay just as much if not more for multiple monstrous creatures as you can for the Titans.

2 questions i still have. Does new box have old weapon sprue as well and if not does it come separately as well. Ie if i want all weapon sprues for all titans can i buv net full box or should i buy original plus new weapon sprue

tneva82 wrote:
2 questions i still have. Does new box have old weapon sprue as well and if not does it come separately as well. Ie if i want all weapon sprues for all titans can i buv net full box or should i buy original plus new weapon sprue

I think we can assume the new box has just the new sprue for the same price. Why on earth they want to sell two separate SKUs and print different box art makes no sense to me but that’s what GW does.

This may be like the Land Raider situation where it’s best to buy the original LR and the Crusader upgrade sprue because you can no longer buy the LR lascannon sprue it you get the Crusader box.

The new Warlord is also worth getting if you don't magnetize weapons (as not everyone will).

Otherwise if you are magnetizing then chances are its best to get the regular Warlords and then pick up the upgrade kits in the new year when they come on sale.

 Fajita Fan wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
2 questions i still have. Does new box have old weapon sprue as well and if not does it come separately as well. Ie if i want all weapon sprues for all titans can i buv net full box or should i buy original plus new weapon sprue

I think we can assume the new box has just the new sprue for the same price. Why on earth they want to sell two separate SKUs and print different box art makes no sense to me but that’s what GW does.

This may be like the Land Raider situation where it’s best to buy the original LR and the Crusader upgrade sprue because you can no longer buy the LR lascannon sprue it you get the Crusader box.

That's the safe assumption but another could be it's the "complete" box so has them all for some increase in price.

And yes if it's going to be that the new box has no original weapon sprue and it doesn't come out on it's own(I tried to ask on FB but no comment so far) then I won't be buying the new box ever. I want all weapon options for all titans so in this case if I were to buy new box I would miss on missiles(this in particular hurts) and volcano cannons. I rather would indeed then buy the new weapon sprue and old box. Which would be bit pity as I would love to get even just 1 weapon sprue for now and Mortis COULD do with 2nd warlord. But price of not getting full weapon options would be too much to pay.

Well we'll find out whether the new box comes with old weapons ala 40k knights or not soon enough(I guess within 2 weeks).

JWBS wrote:

Chopstick wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
GW's tipping point for going to plastic is likely lower than most other manufacturers, as GW make their own plastics. They don't have to wait in Renedra's queue or go to China.

I'm not sure I agree with the odd assertion that the audience for Adeptus Titanicus is "people who buy 40k-scale titans". An Adeptus Titanicus force is no more expensive than an army for 40k or Age of Sigmar, after all.

Because you don't expect 40k players pay 110USD for a not-knight that they can't use in any game but this game, while they could just use that money to buy a 40k force instead. For a new game the entry cost of this game is high.

Or maybe I was wrong and it's actually the Epic community lurking in the shadow for decade, only to come out and bought multiple copies of GM edtion causing it to sold out on the webstore. Or maybe some millionaire bought many GM boxes,... Which ever theories you prefer, in the end, GW did make a profit with this game.

Eh? WJat are you saying? That the success of AT is definitely either Epic oldschoolers or the Uberwealthy? And why would you expect 40K players to buy only 40K minis? Sorry dude I think you have it all wrong.

I'm a lurking epic player...haven't given GW a dime since 5th edition 40k, and I went all in on AT18. Not Uber wealthy....I think there are a lot of people with fond memories of the original AT that just had to buy...if nothing else, the titians are great upgrades for the epic armies...

I'm a lurking epic player...haven't given GW a dime since 5th edition 40k, and I went all in on AT18. Not Uber wealthy....I think there are a lot of people with fond memories of the original AT that just had to buy...if nothing else, the titians are great upgrades for the epic armies...

Hi!

This.

As a long time epic player, I could care less about the actual rules for this game. I want the models to join my enormous collection since their size appeals to me (I'm using them for my Heresy epic legions).

I suspect there is quite a large amount of epic players investing in this game to add these models to their collections. How much they are contributing to overall sales can be debated, but there seem to be quite a bit of us out there.

6 GM boxes, 24 reavers and 24 warhounds so far. I have not bought GW products in this fashion since Epic's Golden Age in the 90's. I know several individuals (epic fans like me), who have invested on a similar scale.


Epic players are definitely interested as well as buying.


Primarch1

Been lurking this forum for a while and decided to join you all tonight on Dakka. This thread in perticular has been a damn good read since AT has been released.

I can't really afford this game at the moment, and so have been limited to just Knights and a copy of Horizon Wars, so the news of the Cerastus Knights has been very welcome.

Bit on the fence as to whether the AT Ruleset would be any good in a Knights-only game? I get the feeling it needs at least the Reaver titans to play?

tneva82 wrote:

 Fajita Fan wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
2 questions i still have. Does new box have old weapon sprue as well and if not does it come separately as well. Ie if i want all weapon sprues for all titans can i buv net full box or should i buy original plus new weapon sprue

I think we can assume the new box has just the new sprue for the same price. Why on earth they want to sell two separate SKUs and print different box art makes no sense to me but that’s what GW does.

This may be like the Land Raider situation where it’s best to buy the original LR and the Crusader upgrade sprue because you can no longer buy the LR lascannon sprue it you get the Crusader box.

That's the safe assumption but another could be it's the "complete" box so has them all for some increase in price.

And yes if it's going to be that the new box has no original weapon sprue and it doesn't come out on it's own(I tried to ask on FB but no comment so far) then I won't be buying the new box ever. I want all weapon options for all titans so in this case if I were to buy new box I would miss on missiles(this in particular hurts) and volcano cannons. I rather would indeed then buy the new weapon sprue and old box. Which would be bit pity as I would love to get even just 1 weapon sprue for now and Mortis COULD do with 2nd warlord. But price of not getting full weapon options would be too much to pay.

Well we'll find out whether the new box comes with old weapons ala 40k knights or not soon enough(I guess within 2 weeks).

I'll just never understand why they want to print different boxes for the same model with different gun sprues which just adds to costs. Look at the IG and SM tank ranges.

 Fajita Fan wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Fajita Fan wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
2 questions i still have. Does new box have old weapon sprue as well and if not does it come separately as well. Ie if i want all weapon sprues for all titans can i buv net full box or should i buy original plus new weapon sprue

I think we can assume the new box has just the new sprue for the same price. Why on earth they want to sell two separate SKUs and print different box art makes no sense to me but that’s what GW does.

This may be like the Land Raider situation where it’s best to buy the original LR and the Crusader upgrade sprue because you can no longer buy the LR lascannon sprue it you get the Crusader box.

That's the safe assumption but another could be it's the "complete" box so has them all for some increase in price.

And yes if it's going to be that the new box has no original weapon sprue and it doesn't come out on it's own(I tried to ask on FB but no comment so far) then I won't be buying the new box ever. I want all weapon options for all titans so in this case if I were to buy new box I would miss on missiles(this in particular hurts) and volcano cannons. I rather would indeed then buy the new weapon sprue and old box. Which would be bit pity as I would love to get even just 1 weapon sprue for now and Mortis COULD do with 2nd warlord. But price of not getting full weapon options would be too much to pay.

Well we'll find out whether the new box comes with old weapons ala 40k knights or not soon enough(I guess within 2 weeks).

I'll just never understand why they want to print different boxes for the same model with different gun sprues which just adds to costs. Look at the IG and SM tank ranges.

GW wants to keep the combined price of the Warlord below a certain value, which means they can't just put all the weapons in one box.Otherwise it won't meet their estimated income targets based on investment in the model itself. So breaking it into different warlords with different weapon sprue makes sense. Yes its another box, but it means that GW can keep the overall price of that box below a target threshold.

Also a warlord in a box is far more attractive to most customers, remembering that many people (honestly the majority) won't use magnets (even though GW has even put the slots into the model for them). AT will have more magnets than most, but still many people build fixed models. So having a big shiny box with a whole warlord inside is far more interesting to the casual customer than an upgrade pack for a model that already comes with a full compliment of weapons

SamusDrake wrote:


Bit on the fence as to whether the AT Ruleset would be any good in a Knights-only game? I get the feeling it needs at least the Reaver titans to play?

No, due to being so small and act as support unit, Knights banner ignore a lot of AT core rule, like facing, pivoting, firing arc, managing shield, reactor, body part damage, repair,.... You'll be better off playing Imperial Knight : Renegade, or make up your own rule for Knight-only games.

Has anyone tried a knights-versus-warlord game yet? How did it go?

MarkNorfolk wrote:
Has anyone tried a knights-versus-warlord game yet? How did it go?

Not that but I played game with 15 knights on one side. Found out while knights have no trouble taking down knights(they took down 2 reavers and warhound) they have habit of dying themselves in the process. Occupational hazard to have pray fall over or explode in face!

Chopstick wrote:


No, due to being so small and act as support unit, Knights banner ignore a lot of AT core rule, like facing, pivoting, firing arc, managing shield, reactor, body part damage, repair,.... You'll be better off playing Imperial Knight : Renegade, or make up your own rule for Knight-only games.

Thank you for confirming my suspicions!

Funny you mention Imperial Knight: Renegade, as I thought the rules could be somewhat bended into a "travel edition" with the AT scale Knights. There is certainly a £40 box game GW could make here with the Knights!

I've been on the fence since August, but I would need at least two reavers to make it worth while. Had played around with the idea of having 1 Warhound and 3 Knights( on each side ), but even then I get the feeling the game would still be too watered down.

For the time being, though, Horizon Wars fits the bill. Using P3 Mech stats for the Knights seems to work well and one can get the HW core rules for about £13 on Amazon.

For a comparison of costs and why the "AT is so expensive" crowd are wrong.

For a 2000pts 40K army and rule books you're looking at £500+.

A resin Warhound is £376.

For AT, the rulebook, Warlord, 2 Reavers, 2 Warhounds and 3 Knights are £230.

With a 20% discount AT drops to £184 and thats for a full Axiom maniple with a Knights Banner so around 165-1700pts depending on load out, which is a bout the size of games that get played. Thats a lot of value for a game thats arguably more fun than 40K.

It might compare more directly with River Horse's Pacific Rim: Extinction, or Weta Workshop's GKR: Heavy Hitters, or Privateer Press' Monsterpocalypse, or GigaRobo.

 Imateria wrote:
For a comparison of costs and why the "AT is so expensive" crowd are wrong.

For a 2000pts 40K army and rule books you're looking at £500+.

A resin Warhound is £376.

For AT, the rulebook, Warlord, 2 Reavers, 2 Warhounds and 3 Knights are £230.

With a 20% discount AT drops to £184 and thats for a full Axiom maniple with a Knights Banner so around 165-1700pts depending on load out, which is a bout the size of games that get played. Thats a lot of value for a game thats arguably more fun than 40K.

AT isn't expensive for what it is - a specialist game of Titan management and tactics. Although the £65 price tag of the Warlord Titan makes one wince with dispair( at first ), it is the largest unit you can get for the game and is designed with weapon swapping in mind with magnets. And if you are coming from the "Titan owners club" it sure makes more sense than the 40K scale version. Last I looked it was about £1300...my word! In that context £65 seems like an absolute bargin!

The other titans and Knights are decently priced too, especially the Reaver which I predicted being at least £40.

The Grand Master edition gave a saving of about £55, which cannot be faulted, but for the wider GW audience it was released at the same time as the Kill Team starter set and so the big question was that of getting one's money's worth - £175 for a new game which was yet to be tested(not to mention a scale that limits the minis to AT alone), or £80 for a revised edition of an existing game which includes fabulous content, and backed by a magnificent marketing campaign? £95 is a lot of difference, even if you do have generous disposable income.

What AT lacks is a reasonable starter set that most GW customers would be more willing to take a chance on. If GW revised their Grandmaster edition and swapped out the two Warlords for two Reavers, and sold it for about £100 - £120, then I think a lot more of us would jump on board. I did e-mail GW if they would consider a Ruleset + 1 Reaver + 3 Knights starter boxset, and they seemed to think it was a good idea and have passed it on to the design team for consideration. How far that goes is anybody's guess, but we can only hope...

With that said, Wayland now has more Warhounds in stock...I'm having them!

I tell people the only reason to get the GME is for a discount on terrain and I’m only using the terrain as basing material. If you’re not planning to use their terrain just get individual titans.

 Fajita Fan wrote:
I tell people the only reason to get the GME is for a discount on terrain and I’m only using the terrain as basing material. If you’re not planning to use their terrain just get individual titans.

The GME combined costs as much as the 2 warlords and 2 sets of knights. The terrain and rules set are effectively free. Even if you don't use the terrain, you are getting more command terminals, weapon cards, and dice as well.

The box was cool but I wish I had just gotten my titans. I don’t have much interest in the Knights other than converting them.

SamusDrake wrote:

The Grand Master edition gave a saving of about £55, which cannot be faulted, but for the wider GW audience it was released at the same time as the Kill Team starter set and so the big question was that of getting one's money's worth - £175 for a new game which was yet to be tested(not to mention a scale that limits the minis to AT alone), or £80 for a revised edition of an existing game which includes fabulous content, and backed by a magnificent marketing campaign? £95 is a lot of difference, even if you do have generous disposable income.
!

You don't need the starter set to play KT, KT cost very low or next to nothing for any existing 40k players. All of the Specialists Game do require you to invest some amount of money to play. Both Bloodbowl and Necromunda have a much lower entry cost than AT. The problem is AT is not 40k. You are expecting people to pay quite a lot for a self-contained game they may or may not find any players to play with, while they could spend it on 40k and easily find a game.

Also, the problem with the GM box is not the price, it's what inside. You are paying for the most expensive box ever, but what you get is a rather lacklusting experience.

A better GM box would be Reaver + 2 Warhound or 1 Warlord + 1 Reaver +1 Warhound on each side.. You get a maniple, and some option for the Reaver and Warhound. But for all we knew by the time they made the GM box, the Warhoud kit had not been made yet, and very likely that the Reaver were also made too late to include in the GM box. A Titan and 3 knights is (currently) not a legit Maniple.

The problem is AT is not 40k.

You seem to have a peculiar hang up on this.

It isn't a problem.

You can say ANY game that isn't 40K isn't 40K. Bloodbowl, Necromunda, Malifaux, Infinity, Warmachine etc.... It's all not 40K and yet many of them still work.

The only issue AT has is that its buy-in is a bit on the steep side to get a single titan. However you're buying a big and very detailed model. Plus I'm sure once they flesh out a few more Knight variants then many will get into the game with a Reaver and box of knights and work up to a mighty Warlord.

Chopstick wrote:

You don't need the starter set to play KT, KT cost very low or next to nothing for any existing 40k players. All of the Specialists Game do require you to invest some amount of money to play. Both Bloodbowl and Necromunda have a much lower entry cost than AT. The problem is AT is not 40k. You are expecting people to pay quite a lot for a self-contained game they may or may not find any players to play with, while they could spend it on 40k and easily find a game.

Also, the problem with the GM box is not the price, it's what inside. You are paying for the most expensive box ever, but what you get is a rather lacklusting experience.

A better GM box would be Reaver + 2 Warhound or 1 Warlord + 1 Reaver +1 Warhound on each side.. You get a maniple, and some option for the Reaver and Warhound. But for all we knew by the time they made the GM box, the Warhoud kit had not been made yet, and very likely that the Reaver were also made too late to include in the GM box. A Titan and 3 knights is (currently) not a legit Maniple.

Agreed on the first point( I personally only bought the KT manual ) yet it was still a clash of two major game releases, although GW still managed to sell very well on both. I couldn't comment on AT itself as I've currently no experience with the game save for youtube playthroughs.

On the third...the GM set seemed to be aimed towards gaming clubs and youtube channels to help promote the game. When you look at it, logically, the game's units are split into two types; Titans and their support knights. The GM edition had both of these core elements and were thus easy enough to demonstrate in channel videos. Then there is the concept of the Warlord being the largest unit in the game while the Questoris Knight being the smallest, which clearly shows the intended scale of the game. I reckon as we move into the new year we might see a "starter set" to allow one to try the water, so to speak...

 Overread wrote:
You can say ANY game that isn't 40K isn't 40K. Bloodbowl, Necromunda,.... It's all not 40K and yet many of them still work.

And both of them (Blood Bowl, Necromunda) get the minimized budget treatment, so if they flop, the damage is minimal. (Although, through some miracle of being the 1st revived Specialist Game, BloodBowl did get greenlit on Plastic Ogre and Troll, not so much on their later release).

Guy was asking earlier why the other Specialist Game didn't get the same treatment as AT, and I'm just pointing out that GW made a bold move that pay off with AT for all the trouble that involve, through luck, good call or good marketing research, whatever reason you prefer.

SamusDrake wrote:

Chopstick wrote:

You don't need the starter set to play KT, KT cost very low or next to nothing for any existing 40k players. All of the Specialists Game do require you to invest some amount of money to play. Both Bloodbowl and Necromunda have a much lower entry cost than AT. The problem is AT is not 40k. You are expecting people to pay quite a lot for a self-contained game they may or may not find any players to play with, while they could spend it on 40k and easily find a game.

Also, the problem with the GM box is not the price, it's what inside. You are paying for the most expensive box ever, but what you get is a rather lacklusting experience.

A better GM box would be Reaver + 2 Warhound or 1 Warlord + 1 Reaver +1 Warhound on each side.. You get a maniple, and some option for the Reaver and Warhound. But for all we knew by the time they made the GM box, the Warhoud kit had not been made yet, and very likely that the Reaver were also made too late to include in the GM box. A Titan and 3 knights is (currently) not a legit Maniple.

Agreed on the first point( I personally only bought the KT manual ) yet it was still a clash of two major game releases, although GW still managed to sell very well on both. I couldn't comment on AT itself as I've currently no experience with the game save for youtube playthroughs.

On the third...the GM set seemed to be aimed towards gaming clubs and youtube channels to help promote the game. When you look at it, logically, the game's units are split into two types; Titans and their support knights. The GM edition had both of these core elements and were thus easy enough to demonstrate in channel videos. Then there is the concept of the Warlord being the largest unit in the game while the Questoris Knight being the smallest, which clearly shows the intended scale of the game. I reckon as we move into the new year we might see a "starter set" to allow one to try the water, so to speak...

Or they could do battlegroup boxes, say 3 reaver/warlord hulls and 2 of each weapons sprue at a relative markdown. Maybe even add the command terminals and a weapons card set. Then a scout group with a couple boxes of warhounds and some knights.

Chopstick wrote:


Also, the problem with the GM box is not the price, it's what inside. You are paying for the most expensive box ever, but what you get is a rather lacklusting experience.

A better GM box would be Reaver + 2 Warhound or 1 Warlord + 1 Reaver +1 Warhound on each side.

Everyone will have his/her own definition of the "perfect" GME. To me the "perfect" GME set would have been one with version 1 and version 2 of the warlord, so as to have more available weapons (WYSIWYG - although you can proxy many of these and worst case you have the cards).

I have yet to play a game as I'm still very much into the building/modeling/painting phase but from what I read and saw there are quite a few people who describe their experiences as quite different from lacklustre. In my case, I bought the GME (actually 2 of them) because I wanted the models and the rules and I felt the inbuilt discount was nice (depending on how you split the content - 2 civitas imperialis boxes or 1/2 civitas imperialis sector box - you are looking at £255 or £242.5 in value for £175).

Looking at 1 Reaver + 2 Warhounds on each side + 1 Rule set would be £175 before any discount. Apply a roughly similar discount as to the GME and you get £125 (not "the most expensive ever", much less of a price shock). Or alternatively throw in some terrain and/or knights valued around £67.5 - 80 and you get something pretty much comparable in terms of cost to the actual GME.

Looking at 1 Warlord + 1 Reaver + 1 Warhound on each side + 1 Rule set would be £275, I am afraid the price tag would have been £195-200 or more should some terrain and/or knights had been included "for free" making it an even more "most expensive box ever" and provoking an even bigger shock than the one experienced. Of course, coverage in terms of titan classes would have been better.

As this pretty much involves personal preferences, it is imho an endless debate.

I am pretty sure we'll see some battlegroup/maniple boxes at some point.

My personal preference in terms of bundling things together would be to see both command terminals and weapons cards included with the actual models (as in "included for free") but as the command terminals are bigger than the reaver's and warhounds' boxes, this won't happen at the individual model level, it could maybe for knights. We'll see.

I would have preferred more LOS blocking buildings in the GM box, If I am honest its the scenery that lets it down for me personally.

Chopstick wrote:


You don't need the starter set to play KT, KT cost very low or next to nothing for any existing 40k players. All of the Specialists Game do require you to invest some amount of money to play. Both Bloodbowl and Necromunda have a much lower entry cost than AT. The problem is AT is not 40k. You are expecting people to pay quite a lot for a self-contained game they may or may not find any players to play with, while they could spend it on 40k and easily find a game.

Also, the problem with the GM box is not the price, it's what inside. You are paying for the most expensive box ever, but what you get is a rather lacklusting experience.

A better GM box would be Reaver + 2 Warhound or 1 Warlord + 1 Reaver +1 Warhound on each side.. You get a maniple, and some option for the Reaver and Warhound. But for all we knew by the time they made the GM box, the Warhoud kit had not been made yet, and very likely that the Reaver were also made too late to include in the GM box. A Titan and 3 knights is (currently) not a legit Maniple.

"having minis you can use in 40k" isn't necessarily a selling point. I don't know a single person who ever said "I'd buy this game, but I can't use these minis in 40k".

As for a "legit Maniple", that's only of relevance if you insist in playing Matched Play to the exclusion of all else. Mind you, I've found that the best demo experience comes from fielding two Reavers a side; the Warlords are too big and slow on their own to be much fun to teach the game with.

On the "its not 40K" issue, it might be a case of "Epic" scale being abscent for such a long time that a new generation of players has grown up since and they are puzzled at this "new" scale system where the minitaures don't fit in with the regular 28mm scale. Thats really the point of what I was trying to say about the Kill Team boxed game being released at the same time as Adeptus Titanicus. I have seen a lot of negative feedback about the 8mm scale being "pointless" and I wonder if thats from the younger players who may not be aware of the classic Epic games such as AT, Titan Legions and "Space Marine".

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

Or they could do battlegroup boxes, say 3 reaver/warlord hulls and 2 of each weapons sprue at a relative markdown. Maybe even add the command terminals and a weapons card set. Then a scout group with a couple boxes of warhounds and some knights.

Now that is a magnificent idea you have there.

 Rayvon wrote:
I would have preferred more LOS blocking buildings in the GM box, If I am honest its the scenery that lets it down for me personally.

The problem with the scenery is that, to me, it feels out of scale with the Titans. It’s detailed so that it looks like huge buildings, but when you place them next to a knight (and compare the 40k knight with infantry) each cube which makes up the buildings is only really the size of a small house.

I honestly think the new 40k city terrain is a better fit for AT, if you want to represent titans marching through the streets of a city of skyscrapers.

I don't want the scenery or the book. If they made a bundle of one Warlord, one Reaver, two Warhounds, a box of Knights, and a small discount (£10) I'd buy a couple of those (if they weren't GW exclusives).

JWBS wrote:
I don't want the scenery or the book. If they made a bundle of one Warlord, one Reaver, two Warhounds, a box of Knights, and a small discount (£10) I'd buy a couple of those (if they weren't GW exclusives).

If you don't want to play AT then the GM box was obviously not aimed at you.

 Imateria wrote:

JWBS wrote:
I don't want the scenery or the book. If they made a bundle of one Warlord, one Reaver, two Warhounds, a box of Knights, and a small discount (£10) I'd buy a couple of those (if they weren't GW exclusives).

If you don't want to play AT then the GM box was obviously not aimed at you.

Goes without saying.

Neronoxx wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Imperator is big and likely would easily start to hit the near £100 model bracket. So I figure we won't see one for a long while yet, AT needs a lot more of its core game out, perhaps even as far as Chaos and Xenos before GW can consider building something that big and expensive.

Head Designer was on stream saying they plan to bring new titans to life before they do xenos, and xenos before epic. So, take that as you want.

NIce, other GW/FW Staff says Epic beforce Xenos.

So, as I have lost this thread a couple of times...are we still looking at spending $220 on two Warlords just so we can switch weapons around between the two?

RazorEdge wrote:

Neronoxx wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Imperator is big and likely would easily start to hit the near £100 model bracket. So I figure we won't see one for a long while yet, AT needs a lot more of its core game out, perhaps even as far as Chaos and Xenos before GW can consider building something that big and expensive.

Head Designer was on stream saying they plan to bring new titans to life before they do xenos, and xenos before epic. So, take that as you want.

NIce, other GW/FW Staff says Epic beforce Xenos.

I'd believe the head designer over random other staff.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
So, as I have lost this thread a couple of times...are we still looking at spending $220 on two Warlords just so we can switch weapons around between the two?

Nopes
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/11/13/guns-for-your-god-machines/



Basically if you're using magnets (not everyone does) then buy the normal/current warlord and wait for the new weapons in the new year as a separate purchase. Or you can buy the new Warlord now if you want to build just that from the box with fixed weapons.

Good news. After decades of experience, I can sometimes easily get worried that GW fill fall back on dumb business styles. Although one would still wonder why they don't release the sprues before the set configuration boxes.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Good news. After decades of experience, I can sometimes easily get worried that GW fill fall back on dumb business styles. Although one would still wonder why they don't release the sprues before the set configuration boxes.

Their current strategy (of selling plastic toys at massive mark up, but also trying to make sure the customer base doesn't feel truly shafted before/after each and every purchase) seems to be doing very, very well for them atm, but I suppose there's always the chance that they'll slip back to Kirby-nomics at some point. As for sprues before sets - well, I can imagine some confusion there for new buyers.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Good news. After decades of experience, I can sometimes easily get worried that GW fill fall back on dumb business styles. Although one would still wonder why they don't release the sprues before the set configuration boxes.

To maximize full kit sales. More profit per new warlord box than just weapon sprue. Same reason why 2 new ork buggies are in speed freek box only for now

 Rayvon wrote:
I would have preferred more LOS blocking buildings in the GM box, If I am honest its the scenery that lets it down for me personally.

Totally agree with you. The scenery pieces look more like tank panels to me.

 Fajita Fan wrote:

 Rayvon wrote:
I would have preferred more LOS blocking buildings in the GM box, If I am honest its the scenery that lets it down for me personally.

Totally agree with you. The scenery pieces look more like tank panels to me.

Look wise they are IMO good but damn it would be expensive to get decent terrain with them. Assuming one wants buildings that can block even warlord.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Good news. After decades of experience, I can sometimes easily get worried that GW fill fall back on dumb business styles. Although one would still wonder why they don't release the sprues before the set configuration boxes.

I did wonder this too, but if someone is buying their first Warlord Titan, they may prefer the "melta-claw" variant over the first volcano-cannon...without laying down £65 in addition to whatever it may cost for the weapon sprue. You never know - that weapon sprue could be £20!

Realistically though, I think they should have released both the new variant warlord and the separate weapon sprue together, and perhaps delayed the Cerastus Knights for the new year....as much as it pains me to say that being a Knight-nut!

SamusDrake wrote:
Realistically though, I think they should have released both the new variant warlord and the separate weapon sprue together, and perhaps delayed the Cerastus Knights for the new year....as much as it pains me to say that being a Knight-nut!

Should they have? That would mean less profits for GW. Guess which they prioritize...

Now they get people who want those sprues NOW buy full kit rather than just weapon sprue later. As the plastic for titan itself is essentially free any sales they make for titan with new weapon sprue over sales of just weapon sprue is more money to GW.

There's reason why GW often puts new stuff first for big boxes even if it's with discount. The extra sprues are effectively free so they get customers spend more then they would have otherwise.

Don't forget even with magnet slots made into the model, many people will still buy and build fixed post Warlords. So for them buying a new type and old type and then mix matching weapons and gluing them in fully is perfectly fine for them. They get two Warlords that they will use armed how they want and they don't need optional parts because they will never swap the arms over ever.

tneva82 wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:
Realistically though, I think they should have released both the new variant warlord and the separate weapon sprue together, and perhaps delayed the Cerastus Knights for the new year....as much as it pains me to say that being a Knight-nut!

Should they have? That would mean less profits for GW. Guess which they prioritize...

Now they get people who want those sprues NOW buy full kit rather than just weapon sprue later. As the plastic for titan itself is essentially free any sales they make for titan with new weapon sprue over sales of just weapon sprue is more money to GW.

There's reason why GW often puts new stuff first for big boxes even if it's with discount. The extra sprues are effectively free so they get customers spend more then they would have otherwise.

Yes, there is that to it.

Just had another thought; does everyone magnatize their titans? They may prefer to have a separate titan with a different configuration, rather than muck around with magnets...

Well, I can see magnetizing a Warlord, as it's the most expensive titan to lock into a set configuration, as well as being ready-made to magnetize. At this point it's just a couple more spots of superglue and a couple of magnets. It's not like you have to do major surgery on the model.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Well, I can see magnetizing a Warlord, as it's the most expensive titan to lock into a set configuration, as well as being ready-made to magnetize. At this point it's just a couple more spots of superglue and a couple of magnets. It's not like you have to do major surgery on the model.

My thoughts exactly. I even magnatize the heads!

 Rayvon wrote:
I would have preferred more LOS blocking buildings in the GM box, If I am honest its the scenery that lets it down for me personally.

It would be nice for them to add more terrain later. More mechanicus styled structures, angled roofs, ruined sections, maybe bastions and larger fortresses.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Well, I can see magnetizing a Warlord, as it's the most expensive titan to lock into a set configuration, as well as being ready-made to magnetize. At this point it's just a couple more spots of superglue and a couple of magnets. It's not like you have to do major surgery on the model.

Same with the carapace weapon on the Reaver. The holes for the magnets are already there. It's just a matter of making sure that the magnets are aligned to each other properly, and adding a couple of drops of superglue.

That does make the omission of magnets on the reaver arms quite a bit more glaring. But I'm guessing it has something to do with adopting an overly slavish attitude toward the 40K Reaver titan when designing the smaller-sized one.

While I certainly find discussions about the merits of various starter set formats and the start-up cost per game system endlessly fascinating...

Is there any news or rumor for AT18 involved?

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Well, I can see magnetizing a Warlord, as it's the most expensive titan to lock into a set configuration, as well as being ready-made to magnetize. At this point it's just a couple more spots of superglue and a couple of magnets. It's not like you have to do major surgery on the model.

It seems to add a certain amount of fragility to the minis. I sometimes wince when I see a fully magnetised model shuffling around. And there would seem to be a certain amount of paint wear and tear that comes along with moving bits on/off/around. For a painter this isn't terribly good. Having said all that, I can actually see myself magnetising for the first time in my life here, specifically the Warlords, might be fun to have different configs, even for a model that will live on a shelf in a glass case.

See here for the worrying fragility I was talking about (at the start, where they are turning bits around at all angles etc) at 2:03 (the other AM ones are the same but the red knights look pretty solid, which is how I like to build my stuff) https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p058kz6b

 cole1114 wrote:

RazorEdge wrote:

Neronoxx wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Imperator is big and likely would easily start to hit the near £100 model bracket. So I figure we won't see one for a long while yet, AT needs a lot more of its core game out, perhaps even as far as Chaos and Xenos before GW can consider building something that big and expensive.

Head Designer was on stream saying they plan to bring new titans to life before they do xenos, and xenos before epic. So, take that as you want.

NIce, other GW/FW Staff says Epic beforce Xenos.

I'd believe the head designer over random other staff.

Was Adam Troke....

 schoon wrote:
While I certainly find discussions about the merits of various starter set formats and the start-up cost per game system endlessly fascinating...

Is there any news or rumor for AT18 involved?

Sadly not.

I'm guessing the new Warlord and Knights are due for pre-order next Saturday, but I'm wondering when that new Reaver is up for release? He looks absolutely badass.

RazorEdge wrote:

Neronoxx wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Imperator is big and likely would easily start to hit the near £100 model bracket. So I figure we won't see one for a long while yet, AT needs a lot more of its core game out, perhaps even as far as Chaos and Xenos before GW can consider building something that big and expensive.

Head Designer was on stream saying they plan to bring new titans to life before they do xenos, and xenos before epic. So, take that as you want.

NIce, other GW/FW Staff says Epic beforce Xenos.

Who said that? I’ve always heard Xenos being a long while away, and Epic being a maybe. Which would imply xenos first, and epic might not happen at all.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Good news. After decades of experience, I can sometimes easily get worried that GW fill fall back on dumb business styles. Although one would still wonder why they don't release the sprues before the set configuration boxes.

Because some people that would only have bought the sprues will buy additional warlords rather than wait.

This is sales 101.

 ImAGeek wrote:

RazorEdge wrote:

Neronoxx wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Imperator is big and likely would easily start to hit the near £100 model bracket. So I figure we won't see one for a long while yet, AT needs a lot more of its core game out, perhaps even as far as Chaos and Xenos before GW can consider building something that big and expensive.

Head Designer was on stream saying they plan to bring new titans to life before they do xenos, and xenos before epic. So, take that as you want.

NIce, other GW/FW Staff says Epic beforce Xenos.

Who said that? I’ve always heard Xenos being a long while away, and Epic being a maybe. Which would imply xenos first, and epic might not happen at all.

Epic isn't just expanding on AT, its a totally different system. Epic would require a totally unique set of rules for itself and would only "share" AT in a sense that you could use the titans, but you'd likely use far fewer of them (esp Warlords) whilst being required to build bigger armies of tanks, troops and such.

Epic is a different product and a bigger investment for GW because it would require a lot more diversity of models and sprues to work.


I fully expect the pattern for AT to be:
1) Release more Titans and Knights and ugprade packs
2) Release Chaos Warped/alternate titans using core kits with alternate armour and chaos weapons.
3) Release fully unique Chaos titans
4) XENOS - probably starting with Eldar and Orks.
5) Tyranids (might come with Genestealer cult pack for warlord/knights)
6) Tau and Necrons and other stuff


Dark Eldar might get an upgrade pack that lets them add more spikes to Eldar Titans, but otherwise are the only main faction that won't have a titan of its own.

Basically we are currently in the Chaos cycle where traitors are still using identical titans. As the AT product matures we'll see the twist of chaos become stronger and stronger.


Of course it all hinges on the sales of AT and also GW's production capacity and focus

About that; the Chaos Titans degenerated pretty quickly; there should be at least warped armour sets available alongside Titandeath, and the first fully changed Banelords showed up for the Siege of Terra.

Yep, plus I'm sure the FW team will want to keep making Imperial Titan through it all, so I'd expect to see Chaos titans and xenos long before we get near to the end of the roster of potential titans that they can throw at us (at least not before they have to invent totally new models and weapons).

Of course they could also start to flesh out titans and knights like they have done Space Marines by making more subfaction specific variations, named titans and upgrade packs.

I wonder if something like Mechanicus walkers or crawlers with slightly different movement or facing rules would be a way for them to experiment with bridging into tank rules for Epic.

The current system is robust enough to handle smaller armored divisions of tanks and what not, acting in a fashion similar to knights.
So ultimately, who knows?
Best we can do in the meantime is continue to sensibly support the game.
Speaking of, anyone know anyone who is ACTUALLY creating content for AT? There seems to be a large dearth at the moment.

Honestly what id like to see is the slow expansion of titanicus into effectively epic (but have the two systems combined into 1) my group is loving the game atm.

The game currently will benefit alot from the extra knight chasis and minor upgrades to titans for some more customisation as we often find lists sometimes have 90-120 point holes in them due to high costs per model in points and no way to spend spare points. Stuff like some extra armour plates, improved optics or joins (kind of like how the legion lists have) would help, this will also hopefully be covered later with chaos blessings for traitor legions.

Also bringing in orks and eldar Titans eventually, though I doubt we would see them expand the game to cover every 40k faction and might just stick to chaos-imperium-orks-eldar with maybe at most tyranids.

Maybe in 2-3 years once the main stuff is all out do a supplement bringing in rules for smaller stuff and start building game to work for epic.

1. Super heavy tanks
2. tank squadrons to fight the anti titan tanks
3. troops and termies to fight those

I think the one worry about epic is the sheer amount of troop types, people wont be happy unless every model gets an epic version, I can kinda see only way epic comes out is as 30k epic just so they dont have to produce as many different factions.

Neronoxx wrote:
The current system is robust enough to handle smaller armored divisions of tanks and what not, acting in a fashion similar to knights.
So ultimately, who knows?
Best we can do in the meantime is continue to sensibly support the game.
Speaking of, anyone know anyone who is ACTUALLY creating content for AT? There seems to be a large dearth at the moment.

Apologist did write rules for Ork Gargants over at the Death of the Rubricist. I'd think most people are far too busy getting their toys built and painted at this stage, so writing new missions and rules variants by community effort is a bit in the infancy as of yet. Some russian fellow here wrote a system for chaos infusions on your machines, but I don't think that has been shared yet. Personally I've been toying with the idea, but the first thing would be to write more missions as there is still quite a bit of testing and trying going on with the core system. Must play at least a few dozen games more first

New Warlord kit is up for pre-order next week, alongside the Lancers.

Not much to report but still news nonetheless. The new Warlord and Knights are due for release next week...

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/11/18/coming-next-week-project-boxes-tiny-titans-and-heroes-of-middle-earth/

 Overread wrote:

I fully expect the pattern for AT to be:
1) Release more Titans and Knights and ugprade packs
2) Release Chaos Warped/alternate titans using core kits with alternate armour and chaos weapons.
3) Release fully unique Chaos titans
4) XENOS - probably starting with Eldar and Orks.
5) Tyranids (might come with Genestealer cult pack for warlord/knights)
6) Tau and Necrons and other stuff

I also wouldn't be surprised if we see some anti-titan vehicles, such as the Shadowsword Tank. It mounts a Volcano Cannon as its primary weapon, which means that it's a threat to titans. But it doesn't have much else. Putting it into the game would be a way to diversify a bit, while still maintaining a question mark about whether or not they're ever going to remake Epic.

Opps, must have overlooked your post, MDG...

No worries

Kind of tempted by the Knights and the Warlord. On account existing Warlord isn’t magnetised. I consider the original loadout pretty flexible in a mixed Maniple anyway!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
No worries

Kind of tempted by the Knights and the Warlord. On account existing Warlord isn’t magnetised. I consider the original loadout pretty flexible in a mixed Maniple anyway!

Must say that the way they've painted that Warlord I do fancy ordering one. Hes got that "come and 'ave a go if you think yer 'ard e'nuff" look about him.

SamusDrake wrote:
Not much to report but still news nonetheless. The new Warlord and Knights are due for release next week...

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/11/18/coming-next-week-project-boxes-tiny-titans-and-heroes-of-middle-earth/

Excelent. Warlord is pass likely due to wanting all weapon sprues for all titans but knights I think I'll add 2 boxes initially to bolster my # of knights to 22! Tear down those titans(and die in process...Being knight pilot is tough job. Even if you succeed in taking down your pray you are likely to die as a result!)

So are the new knights getting their own command terminal? How are we going to get the unique rules for them I'm not sure gw has said anything about that

 Thargrim wrote:
So are the new knights getting their own command terminal? How are we going to get the unique rules for them I'm not sure gw has said anything about that

It’s a little confusing that they’ve not spelled it out, but I’d assume if the rules don’t come anywhere else they’ll be in the box.

Also kind of important: How many max knights in a Lance? If it works like Cerastus did, I guess one box is a minimum/half a maximum Lancer Lance?

changemod wrote:

 Thargrim wrote:
So are the new knights getting their own command terminal? How are we going to get the unique rules for them I'm not sure gw has said anything about that

It’s a little confusing that they’ve not spelled it out, but I’d assume if the rules don’t come anywhere else they’ll be in the box.

Also kind of important: How many max knights in a Lance? If it works like Cerastus did, I guess one box is a minimum/half a maximum Lancer Lance?

Maybe they put out knight command terminal pack with normal knights and these in it? Would also fix annoyance of those regular knight terminals only being on rule set currently. How many rule sets you are expected to buy anyway?-)

Ultimately, we just don’t know one way or the other at the moment,

I’m hoping they’re in the box, or at least a perfunctory version. I’m not massively keen on having to make two purchases to be able to use them.

Just curious - as I've yet to get the rule set - but what units do they cover in the core rule book? I'm assuming its just the four released so far...

Yup.

Well, the boxed set comes with the rules at any rate.

SamusDrake wrote:
Just curious - as I've yet to get the rule set - but what units do they cover in the core rule book? I'm assuming its just the four released so far...

None whatsoever. Units use resource tracking sheets that double as their statblock.

Mildly annoying early on when you’re trying to memorise the ruleset, but oh well.

SamusDrake wrote:
Just curious - as I've yet to get the rule set - but what units do they cover in the core rule book? I'm assuming its just the four released so far...

Just to clarify what Mad Doc Grotsnik and changemod said: the core rulebook is sold in a boxed set and cannot be purchased separately outside of bits sellers. That box contains two unit cards for each unit type in the initial releases (Warlord, Reaver, Warhound, non-Cerastus Knights) and a set of weapon cards covering the three Titan types, along with a bunch of cards, counters and tokens needed for play. Oh, and the hard-back rulebook.

People can and have referred to both the rules pack and the rulebook as “the rules”, sometimes even interchangeably.

 Mr_Rose wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:
Just curious - as I've yet to get the rule set - but what units do they cover in the core rule book? I'm assuming its just the four released so far...

Just to clarify what Mad Doc Grotsnik and changemod said: the core rulebook is sold in a boxed set and cannot be purchased separately outside of bits sellers. That box contains two unit cards for each unit type in the initial releases (Warlord, Reaver, Warhound, non-Cerastus Knights) and a set of weapon cards covering the three Titan types, along with a bunch of cards, counters and tokens needed for play. Oh, and the hard-back rulebook.

People can and have referred to both the rules pack and the rulebook as “the rules”, sometimes even interchangeably.

Well, the question was “What units do they cover in the core book”, which following normal GW releases wouldn’t be an unreasonable question.

The rule box is currently the only way to get cards for the knights, kind of annoying if you’d want more than two lances. I’d also say that the weapons cards in the core set are pretty inadequate for most purposes, not catering for much in the way of multiples of weapons in an army except for giving you four belicosas and two twin apocalypse cards.

Well pretty much no GW game actually has units in rulebook. Usually those are in separate codexes. But as rulebook is only available in ruleset which happens to have closest equilavent of codex(command terminals) AT is one of closest game GW has where units could be said to be in rulebook!

tneva82 wrote:
Well pretty much no GW game actually has units in rulebook. Usually those are in separate codexes. But as rulebook is only available in ruleset which happens to have closest equilavent of codex(command terminals) AT is one of closest game GW has where units could be said to be in rulebook!

To be fair Kill Team and Shadow War: Armageddon have units in their rulebooks and thus assumed they would have the same for AT. I did however overlook the command terminals serving that purpose...which makes sense considering the resource management aspect of the game.

 Overread wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

RazorEdge wrote:

Neronoxx wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Imperator is big and likely would easily start to hit the near £100 model bracket. So I figure we won't see one for a long while yet, AT needs a lot more of its core game out, perhaps even as far as Chaos and Xenos before GW can consider building something that big and expensive.

Head Designer was on stream saying they plan to bring new titans to life before they do xenos, and xenos before epic. So, take that as you want.

NIce, other GW/FW Staff says Epic beforce Xenos.

Who said that? I’ve always heard Xenos being a long while away, and Epic being a maybe. Which would imply xenos first, and epic might not happen at all.

Epic isn't just expanding on AT, its a totally different system. Epic would require a totally unique set of rules for itself and would only "share" AT in a sense that you could use the titans, but you'd likely use far fewer of them (esp Warlords) whilst being required to build bigger armies of tanks, troops and such.

Epic is a different product and a bigger investment for GW because it would require a lot more diversity of models and sprues to work.


I fully expect the pattern for AT to be:
1) Release more Titans and Knights and ugprade packs
2) Release Chaos Warped/alternate titans using core kits with alternate armour and chaos weapons.
3) Release fully unique Chaos titans
4) XENOS - probably starting with Eldar and Orks.
5) Tyranids (might come with Genestealer cult pack for warlord/knights)
6) Tau and Necrons and other stuff


Dark Eldar might get an upgrade pack that lets them add more spikes to Eldar Titans, but otherwise are the only main faction that won't have a titan of its own.

Basically we are currently in the Chaos cycle where traitors are still using identical titans. As the AT product matures we'll see the twist of chaos become stronger and stronger.


Of course it all hinges on the sales of AT and also GW's production capacity and focus

Almost certainly the Xenos here means Orks and Eldar, then you'll get Epic - then Tau/Tyranids/Necron.

changemod wrote:
I’d also say that the weapons cards in the core set are pretty inadequate for most purposes, not catering for much in the way of multiples of weapons in an army except for giving you four belicosas and two twin apocalypse cards.

Yup. This is particularly glaring with the Warhound release, which has two Warhounds in the box. But you only have one card for each weapon in the rules box. Of course, making your own cards isn't that difficult. But it is a bit of a glaring omission.

As for the new knights, they're being packaged two to a box, unlike the Questoris knights (which were three to a box). I'm guessing that the control cards for them will initially be released as a separate purchase (much like GW has done with the additional cards for the titans), and possibly included in Titan Death when that product shows up.

They've said on FB that Command Terminals for Knights (both Questoris and Cerastis) will be up for pre-order alongside the Cerastus models and the new Warlord box this Saturday.

I predict that command terminals will be a bit like Gang War books for Underhive. A product designed to be initially scaled to popularity for the range.

My gut feeling is that GW is still running a bit sensitive to the specialist games and wants to test them out mid-term not just short term launch day. Hence why releases for both those games have been staggered in stages. This makes for a very messy release period and initial year or so of releases because you end up with lots of repeat products; or lots of support products. It bloats the system, but it also scales with the system very nicely.

It means GW is free to end support at any stage and the whole product remains functional. They aren't pre-loading people with command terminals for models that never come; nor are they releasing models unsupported and reliant on WD publications (exceptions being a few things like Chaos and Genestealers in Underhive).

Of course this means that when GW becomes more confident in market support and that the game is selling steady and beyond its launch window, they can do as they've done with Underhive and start releasing more consolidated publications and support material. Material more based on feedback and how the market has reacted to the game. It cleans things up and makes it more attractive to new players.

The only downside is that earl adaptors can get a bit stuck either repeat buying or buying "more" than newer fans need to (as the consolidated products lower the cost to get the same amount of support material).



I think its a poor move on that front, but its a good sensible move on the front of scaling a game to actual market popularity and leaving a get-out option for GW to end support and leave the game in a functional state. Since there is always the chance that a game might peak and fall very fast, but then recover later provided its core functionality is there.

 Overread wrote:
I predict that command terminals will be a bit like Gang War books for Underhive. A product designed to be initially scaled to popularity for the range.

My gut feeling is that GW is still running a bit sensitive to the specialist games and wants to test them out mid-term not just short term launch day. Hence why releases for both those games have been staggered in stages. This makes for a very messy release period and initial year or so of releases because you end up with lots of repeat products; or lots of support products. It bloats the system, but it also scales with the system very nicely.

It means GW is free to end support at any stage and the whole product remains functional. They aren't pre-loading people with command terminals for models that never come; nor are they releasing models unsupported and reliant on WD publications (exceptions being a few things like Chaos and Genestealers in Underhive).

or it's standard GW "no model no rules" policy to fight against 3rd parties making equilavents before official kit comes.

tneva82 wrote:

or it's standard GW "no model no rules" policy to fight against 3rd parties making equilavents before official kit comes.

Yes there is that aspect to bundle alongside it as well.

They're not going to add in Command Terminals for new units because they've not designed those new units. As with Necromunda and Blood Bowl, the performance of the initial release is what informs future development. The content from GW 2 - 4 wasn't in the rulebook not because they wanted to drip-feed it out, but because they hadn't written it yet. Same with AT. They probably had the CAD assets for the Cerastus Knights (subject to the re-scaling process), and an idea of what they should be like, but they're coming later because they didn't have finished rules to put in the initial box.

You won't likely see Tau in the game for a long time - Xenos forces being added are being considered on the basis of "who was here around the time or the Horus Heresy."
Even the orks being added in was going to be based on the time frame of the Beast Arises, which is set just after the Horus Heresy.
I think Orks and Eldar are sensible expectations but anything else is going to set yourself up for disappointment.

But with FW doing their custom knights, we might be able to convert up some sweet House Devine monstrosities

Neronoxx wrote:
You won't likely see Tau in the game for a long time - Xenos forces being added are being considered on the basis of "who was here around the time or the Horus Heresy."
Even the orks being added in was going to be based on the time frame of the Beast Arises, which is set just after the Horus Heresy.
I think Orks and Eldar are sensible expectations but anything else is going to set yourself up for disappointment.

But with FW doing their custom knights, we might be able to convert up some sweet House Devine monstrosities

Based on what? Timeline is free to change. 0% of models are not usable post heresy. No rule needs to be dropped. All it takes to put tyranid expansion is drop name horus heresy from title of expansion

Rules-wise, that's true. However, the design team has always said this game will be initially focused on exploring titan actions during the Heresy. That's what we'll see first, with non-Imperial units coming later.

Heresy is the core setting because it lets them put down opposing armies with the same models on either side with a legitimate story behind it. It at least halves the amount of money they have to invest because they only have to make one line of models for both sides in the conflict.

The bonus is that titans basically don't change through the ages. So they can advance through the heresy, from just traitors to twisted to full blown warped titans mutated and sticky with chaos oozing out of them. Then they can advance further and throw in Orks and Eldar; further still to Tyranids; then they can time jump again and introduce Necrons and Tau.

And through it all the original Warlords remain viable and in keeping with the setting. It's a fantastic element for the design team that lets them advance the game as far as they feel the market will support it and can leave it at any point without the game being "incomplete."

GW are also being very clear in their language about what is not coming soon in terms of models. They are taking great pains to ensure that whilst we all hope for chaos and xenos, GW isn't promising them to us. If they decide to end AT tomorrow then they've not left out any promises save for pipe dreams of fans.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Rules-wise, that's true. However, the design team has always said this game will be initially focused on exploring titan actions during the Heresy. That's what we'll see first, with non-Imperial units coming later.

Yes. Initially. But that doesn't mean never. Ergo ruling out tyranids etc from future expansions would be silly.

tneva82 wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Rules-wise, that's true. However, the design team has always said this game will be initially focused on exploring titan actions during the Heresy. That's what we'll see first, with non-Imperial units coming later.

Yes. Initially. But that doesn't mean never. Ergo ruling out tyranids etc from future expansions would be silly.

Who ruled them out?
Someone said “not for a long time” not “never ever, neener nyeh!”
Think two years or more; Tau or Tyranid, neither will appear before Orks and Eldar regardless and those won’t happen until they run out of ideas for new Imperial and Chaos Titans. Like the Imperial ‘precursor’ of the old Slaaneshi light Titans.

Eldar fought in the Heresy against the Heretics (not with the Imperium - they made that distitinction).

Where there any engagements that also invovled gargants?

Its probably been retconned by now. But I remember the original Epic fluff had the Orks being inspired to build Gargents after encountering Imperial Titans. I suppose any Heresy era battles against the greenskins could be written as the last gasps of the great crusade at the start of the conflict or as happening at the edges. But even factoring in the usual incompetence, for the Imperium to totally take there eye of the ball with the Orks until mid M32 they cant have been much of a threat during or after the Heresy.

Well some Orks were inspired that way- that was a particular band that used their Weirdboy to eavesdrop on Imperial battle communications. In other places in the same book, Gargants are bodies for Mork and Gork to inhabit and smash things up in.

---
A big Ork Empire [described as the 'largest concentration ever' though the Beast thing may retcon that] was crushed right before the Heresy on Ullanor (where Horus gets the Warmaster title), which largely explains why they're nuisance level during the Heresy and its aftermath.

I'm a bit lost over this "Titan Death" thing. I understand its a Black Library book, regarding a big Titan battle, but what does it mean for Adeptus Titanicus? Is it an upcoming expansion?

Yup.

First expansion/campaign book.

Kewl!

Titandeath the book is out in 2-3 weeks. Titandeath the expansion will be out early 2019, probably to coincide with the Horus Heresy event on 2nd Feb

SamusDrake wrote:
I'm a bit lost over this "Titan Death" thing. I understand its a Black Library book, regarding a big Titan battle, but what does it mean for Adeptus Titanicus? Is it an upcoming expansion?

It's new retcon/fluff they've just come up with to 'explain away' why/where/when massive Titan-on-Titan battles happened and why Titans are relatively scarce in the 41st Millennium.

Neronoxx wrote:
The current system is robust enough to handle smaller armored divisions of tanks and what not, acting in a fashion similar to knights.
So ultimately, who knows?
Best we can do in the meantime is continue to sensibly support the game.
Speaking of, anyone know anyone who is ACTUALLY creating content for AT? There seems to be a large dearth at the moment.

I need a lot more games under my belt but I’ve started doing the math on Nids, I’ve always had an interest in biotitans.

My impression is that folks are still getting the measure of the game/rules.

We've only had all the Titan classes available for a few weeks now, and I'm still exploring how that all fits together before I start with new material.

Upgrading the Capitol Imperialis - both physically and rules wise - for AT18 will be one of my first projects to add to the game.

I think it'd be great to see superheavy tanks at least make an appearance, as Baneblades and Shadowswords are perfectly at home in an engine war, and can be treated just like knights. Hell lots of superheavy tanks can do more to a titan than a knight can, anyway.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/11/20/20th-nov-adeptus-titanicus-new-knights-and-warlord-weaponsgw-homepage-post-1/

The terminal incorporating rules for Lancers, Acherons and Castigators but not Atropos is pretty damn disappointing.

changemod wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/11/20/20th-nov-adeptus-titanicus-new-knights-and-warlord-weaponsgw-homepage-post-1/

The terminal incorporating rules for Lancers, Acherons and Castigators but not Atropos is pretty damn disappointing.

"They’ll be available this Saturday, in boxes of two, armed with shock lances and carrying ion gauntlet shields. And don’t forget your Command Terminals set so you can use these new Knights in battle."

To me this reads like you won't even get the Acheron & Castigator options in the box. So that's looking like two models with no weapon options, likely for the same price as 3 Questoris. Then the command terminals are extra and likely direct-only.

Does anyone know if the prices for these have been sent to retailers yet?

 xttz wrote:

changemod wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/11/20/20th-nov-adeptus-titanicus-new-knights-and-warlord-weaponsgw-homepage-post-1/

The terminal incorporating rules for Lancers, Acherons and Castigators but not Atropos is pretty damn disappointing.

"They’ll be available this Saturday, in boxes of two, armed with shock lances and carrying ion gauntlet shields. And don’t forget your Command Terminals set so you can use these new Knights in battle."

To me this reads like you won't even get the Acheron & Castigator options in the box. So that's looking like two models with no weapon options, likely for the same price as 3 Questoris. Then the command terminals are extra and likely direct-only.

Does anyone know if the prices for these have been sent to retailers yet?

We already knew this was a Knight Lancer box set, so the terminal having the other two types on it is kind of a surprise in the first place and why I’m a little miffed that Atropos are left off.

Especially since realistically, Lancers and Atropos are the two types likely to see use in Titanicus. The acheron’s gun here would primarily be useful against other knights, and the castigator falls into roughly the same trap as the knight warden.

I agree, superheavy tanks would be the best place to go for some non-titans. I think it would also help establish the feel of the scale on the board as well.

They'd be able to hurt titans more than knights, and at greater range, but the lack of ion shields and lower wounds will make them really squishy.

I personally hope they do not revise the game to do full epic. As of now, a single maniple is a requirement. If that is removed, you end up with the rock-paper-scissor problem of 40k. I think the game would be interesting as it is now, just with smaller units added in for support, scale, variety, and flavor.

SirWeeble wrote:
I agree, superheavy tanks would be the best place to go for some non-titans. I think it would also help establish the feel of the scale on the board as well.

They'd be able to hurt titans more than knights, and at greater range, but the lack of ion shields and lower wounds will make them really squishy.

I personally hope they do not revise the game to do full epic. As of now, a single maniple is a requirement. If that is removed, you end up with the rock-paper-scissor problem of 40k. I think the game would be interesting as it is now, just with smaller units added in for support, scale, variety, and flavor.

It’s been at least heavily implied that a supplement for knight armies is going to be a thing.

No weapon options for the Questoris knights makes sense though. They are either going to be fielded as lancers or shooty knights and I'd rather pay a lower price and pick between this kit or another one that I guess we will be seeing in the future. Sure it would be nice to have all the options in one kit but I would not be happy if it ended up costing the same amount as the Warhounds for example...

I for one am just happy that Titanicus is getting a bunch of support, bring on the Porphyrion next!

 Commander Cain wrote:
, bring on the Porphyrion next!

Oh yes please! Those are great looking titans and I look forward to when they appear in AT!

Its a shame you don't appear to be able to mix the different knights either.

changemod wrote:

 xttz wrote:

changemod wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/11/20/20th-nov-adeptus-titanicus-new-knights-and-warlord-weaponsgw-homepage-post-1/

The terminal incorporating rules for Lancers, Acherons and Castigators but not Atropos is pretty damn disappointing.

"They’ll be available this Saturday, in boxes of two, armed with shock lances and carrying ion gauntlet shields. And don’t forget your Command Terminals set so you can use these new Knights in battle."

To me this reads like you won't even get the Acheron & Castigator options in the box. So that's looking like two models with no weapon options, likely for the same price as 3 Questoris. Then the command terminals are extra and likely direct-only.

Does anyone know if the prices for these have been sent to retailers yet?

We already knew this was a Knight Lancer box set, so the terminal having the other two types on it is kind of a surprise in the first place and why I’m a little miffed that Atropos are left off.

Especially since realistically, Lancers and Atropos are the two types likely to see use in Titanicus. The acheron’s gun here would primarily be useful against other knights, and the castigator falls into roughly the same trap as the knight warden.

Maybethe acheron isn't far off. Gw likely doesn't want too long time for 3rd parties to be only source.

But with difference being just weapons maybe didn't want to release too many different terminals

changemod wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/11/20/20th-nov-adeptus-titanicus-new-knights-and-warlord-weaponsgw-homepage-post-1/

The terminal incorporating rules for Lancers, Acherons and Castigators but not Atropos is pretty damn disappointing.

These look a LOT better than Questoris for how I intend to use Knights. I'll have to test them out.

Less shot, less range, same strength. Those Castigator Cannon did not see the light of day.

Also apparently the shock blast come from the gauntlet shield now.

Chopstick wrote:
Also apparently the shock blast come from the gauntlet shield now.

That’s probably because they haven’t figured out how to put a melee and a ranged weapon on the same ‘card’ – while the actual shield effect is just a special rule for the unit.

 Mr_Rose wrote:

Chopstick wrote:
Also apparently the shock blast come from the gauntlet shield now.

That’s probably because they haven’t figured out how to put a melee and a ranged weapon on the same ‘card’ – while the actual shield effect is just a special rule for the unit.

Literally just changed the text into Shock Lance (Shock Blast) or (Shooting) and the other one into Shock Lance (melee). Unless of course, rule writer want you to take the shield into other variant, like an Acheron with shield and flamer.

I dont think you will be able to mix and match based on the wording of the shield bonus rule at bottom listing "knight lancers" I think cerastus knights are set loadouts, so the shooting being on shield is likely more a space saver


Also my flgs is offering me £16 per box for pre orders so likely around £20 standard

Funny. I thought wording specifically indicates you can mix&match cerastus patterns. Otherwise "one or more cerastus lancer" would be bit odd wording. Wouldn't it be "cerastus lancers add 1 to saving throw" or something similar

I mean you can mix cerastus knights just not their weapons in response to "like an Acheron with shield and flamer."

I have hope that they actually listened to my suggestion on Facebook and released the castigator, lancer and acheron as a set and then release the styrix, magaera and atrapos as a second box..

But it kinda looks like the lancer is the optimum loadout tbh and the acheron is hilariously short ranged!

 SirDonlad wrote:
I have hope that they actually listened to my suggestion on Facebook and released the castigator, lancer and acheron as a set and then release the styrix, magaera and atrapos as a second box..

But it kinda looks like the lancer is the optimum loadout tbh and the acheron is hilariously short ranged!

At 12" move Acheron wouldn't have too much problem getting in range to use the auto hit flamer (or don't, they can be used to guard the Titans from incoming Knights) It's also the best Support unit atm to deal with other knight banner, that Warhound Inferno Cannon can now focus on more important target.

Chopstick wrote:

At 12" move Acheron wouldn't have too much problem getting in range to use the auto hit flamer (or don't, they can be used to guard the Titans from incoming Knights) It's also the best Support unit atm to deal with other knight banner, that Warhound Inferno Cannon can now focus on more important target.

Fair point, it could get a lot of hits in against a knight banner at the right angle - my preference would be to sacrifice 1 strength to get that extra range and the chance to double up any shots that are sixes.
For the melee weapon i like the +1 strength and +1 accuracy over the rending rule on the acheron chainfist - but different strokes for different folks i guess?

 SirDonlad wrote:

Chopstick wrote:

At 12" move Acheron wouldn't have too much problem getting in range to use the auto hit flamer (or don't, they can be used to guard the Titans from incoming Knights) It's also the best Support unit atm to deal with other knight banner, that Warhound Inferno Cannon can now focus on more important target.

Fair point, it could get a lot of hits in against a knight banner at the right angle - my preference would be to sacrifice 1 strength to get that extra range and the chance to double up any shots that are sixes.
For the melee weapon i like the +1 strength and +1 accuracy over the rending rule on the acheron chainfist - but different strokes for different folks i guess?

There were no guarantee that you would hit those shot, especially when the cover modifier was in place. Auto hit is a huge deal when the others suffer from ork-tier shooting.

Acheron is more versatile, while Lancer is a more durable frontrunner/distration carnifex.

All going to depend on what sort of Maniple one is fielding, and expecting to face I guess.

Lancers seem like they might be handy for heavier Maniples, to prevent enemy Warhounds having it all their own way. Able to close the range, more manouverable, something the Warhounds can’t safely ignore. All helps reduce the incoming, and prevent yourself being outflanked by buying you a bit more time to reposition if needed.

Chopstick wrote:

There were no guarantee that you would hit those shot, especially when the cover modifier was in place. Auto hit is a huge deal when the others suffer from ork-tier shooting.

Acheron is more versatile, while Lancer is a more durable frontrunner/distration carnifex.

I hear ya, but given the turn sequence it's not a case of walking up and toasting at the desired angle, your opponent moves before the combat phase too and i wouldn't just let my opponent have the perfect shot! they have a 3" unit coherency too, so i'm willing to bet that the hit tally from the flamestorm cannon will average to ~2.3

I'm genuinely exited to see the sprue for the cerastus knights - given how casually they broke the news of the new reaver kit vaiant and the warlord weapon sprue, i really think they are stalling on showing the cerastus sprue for a reason

 SirDonlad wrote:

I'm genuinely exited to see the sprue for the cerastus knights - given how casually they broke the news of the new reaver kit vaiant and the warlord weapon sprue, i really think they are stalling on showing the cerastus sprue for a reason

And so you should be excited. The Cerastus Knights will come with an optional second sprue to arm them with Knight-sized electric guitars, harmonicas and maracas.

And coming next month are Questoris variants who provide backing vocals, complete with their own microphone stand.

I'm surprised you haven't yet heard about this...

SamusDrake wrote:
and maracas.

not convinced

Legio Maracas has a certain ring to it.

SamusDrake wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:

I'm genuinely exited to see the sprue for the cerastus knights - given how casually they broke the news of the new reaver kit vaiant and the warlord weapon sprue, i really think they are stalling on showing the cerastus sprue for a reason

And so you should be excited. The Cerastus Knights Bards will come with an optional second sprue to arm them with KnightBard-sized electric guitars, harmonicas and maracas.

And coming next month are Questoris variants who provide backing vocals, complete with their own microphone stand.

I'm surprised you haven't yet heard about this...

FIFY

The new knight requires FAQ right away. Community article claims save of 6 always. However +1 to save roll is pretty irrelevant if your save is -. Either there would need to be mention of minimum or all - entries should be 7. As it is be hit by volcano cannon they would get no save. Opposite of what article mentions. So either rule is written poorly or community article was in error.

If the image of the command terminal is the final version, then the Community article is in error, I'd say. No FAQ needed, as it's fairly clear.

It may not be what was intended and thus need an erratum, but it's not confusing, I think.

changemod wrote:
The terminal incorporating rules for Lancers, Acherons and Castigators but not Atropos is pretty damn disappointing.

That does make sense though, the Atropos is quite different to the other cerastus knights in appearance and is a Mechanicum specific knight I believe (rather than being used by knight households), so fluff wise it doesn't really fit for it to be included in a knight household banner.

I would imagine that we will see a dual Acheron\Castigator kit fairly soon, as it should be easier to fit both sets of weapon options on a sprue as they aren't as big as the shield and lance of the Lancer. Then I doubt we'll see the Atropos for quite a while and I could easily imagine it being resin (or a resin upgrade kit), released with an expansion that includes Mechanicum knight banners.

I am hoping to see a Poryphion soon though, just as I really like it, though again I could imagine it being a resin release, but on saying that I expected the Cerastus Knights to be resin so maybe I'll be pleasently suprised again.

tneva82 wrote:
The new knight requires FAQ right away. Community article claims save of 6 always. However +1 to save roll is pretty irrelevant if your save is -. Either there would need to be mention of minimum or all - entries should be 7. As it is be hit by volcano cannon they would get no save. Opposite of what article mentions. So either rule is written poorly or community article was in error.

The article is in error anyway, as they haven't a clue as to how Charge orders work. The WarCom isn't exactly trustworthy as rules go. Personally I'd say the +1 doesn't save squat against S 10+, or it would've been worded like "increase their shield level by one step" or somesuch.

What's the issue with Charge as described in the article?

Claims 4 attacks per knight rather than unit when charging 12". Obviously big deal whether 6 knights will attack 6x2+4 or 6x(2+4). Though albeit as far as I know no official clarification how it's supposed to work either. Where's the FAQ for AT :(

 Fajita Fan wrote:
Legio Maracas has a certain ring to it.

Adeptus Mariachus

tneva82 wrote:
Claims 4 attacks per knight rather than unit when charging 12". Obviously big deal whether 6 knights will attack 6x2+4 or 6x(2+4). Though albeit as far as I know no official clarification how it's supposed to work either. Where's the FAQ for AT :(

There is no official clarification, no, except main designer James Hewitt's word on it in Facebook (saying it's per unit, in his interpretation counting the extra dice by the least movement in the banner). The other factor pointing in this direction is the way knights attack: as they offensively behave like one body (with the caveat of working like Paired weapons in regards to range, modifiers and such), why on Earth would they accrue massively more dice than other bodies? Any singular attack that starts to throw over a dozen dice in this game is suspect, let alone the possibility of a knight banner of insignificant gnats throwing 30+ high strength death around. No, just no.

Tavis75 wrote:

changemod wrote:
The terminal incorporating rules for Lancers, Acherons and Castigators but not Atropos is pretty damn disappointing.

That does make sense though, the Atropos is quite different to the other cerastus knights in appearance and is a Mechanicum specific knight I believe (rather than being used by knight households), so fluff wise it doesn't really fit for it to be included in a knight household banner.

I would imagine that we will see a dual Acheron\Castigator kit fairly soon, as it should be easier to fit both sets of weapon options on a sprue as they aren't as big as the shield and lance of the Lancer. Then I doubt we'll see the Atropos for quite a while and I could easily imagine it being resin (or a resin upgrade kit), released with an expansion that includes Mechanicum knight banners.

I am hoping to see a Poryphion soon though, just as I really like it, though again I could imagine it being a resin release, but on saying that I expected the Cerastus Knights to be resin so maybe I'll be pleasently suprised again.

Ditto on the Poryphion. I've been on the berge of buying the 40K scale version many times, hopefully a couple of mini Poryphions will arrive some time soon and save me some money.

 Sherrypie wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Claims 4 attacks per knight rather than unit when charging 12". Obviously big deal whether 6 knights will attack 6x2+4 or 6x(2+4). Though albeit as far as I know no official clarification how it's supposed to work either. Where's the FAQ for AT :(

There is no official clarification, no, except main designer James Hewitt's word on it in Facebook (saying it's per unit, in his interpretation counting the extra dice by the least movement in the banner). The other factor pointing in this direction is the way knights attack: as they offensively behave like one body (with the caveat of working like Paired weapons in regards to range, modifiers and such), why on Earth would they accrue massively more dice than other bodies? Any singular attack that starts to throw over a dozen dice in this game is suspect, let alone the possibility of a knight banner of insignificant gnats throwing 30+ high strength death around. No, just no.

And facebook posts aren't all that acceptable.

Let's say I play against new guy who doesn't know this. Basically all he would have to go is MY WORD. I have heard of that statement(btw 2nd hand...So I actually can't even verify having seen that in my own eyes...) but I could not show it. Opponent would have to trust my word. Hell I have only dakkadakka posts to go with. I'm forced to rely on 2nd hand information by unknown people I don't know in medium(internet) known for containing lots of false information.

GW really needs to put up FAQ and stop this "official answers can be found in random FB posts" policy. It does nothing good.

Have you seen that Hewit's post yourself? Can you provide link to it?

I wonder if we will see any knight banner formations, or possibly a titan formation that has some interplay with knight banners like say 5 warhound scouting formation made for working in closer integration with household support.

in titan death im kinda hoping for

-all hounds scouting formation, (maybe gives scout ability an initial scout move at start, or a garunteed command of battlefield first turn)
-3 reavers 2 hounds "frontline" formation, maybe a bonus to full stride orders
-2 warlord-1-3 hounds hounds get some form of overwatch when enemies get to flanks or rear of warlords, or if hound spots they can turn extra)

Thats barring any new titans showing up in the book

overall id like
-more small upgrades, like the legion specific ones, just as a way to spend the often 10-50 missing points in some lists on things like improved armour
-chaos devotions (maybe going into mutations later on) for traitors, nurgle gets an extra servitor dice or re rolls on fixing, slaanesh either gets improved turning or buffed movement speed, Khorne getting more attacks in close combat and tzeench getting buffed aim or psychic abilities. I think the one fear with bringing in mutations and chaos gods is traitors may just end up getting more options, unless they balance it against imperium getting more experienced crew(vs chaos dedication) and upgraded chasis like improved armour panels (vs chaos mutations)
-more missions and strategems

tneva82 wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Claims 4 attacks per knight rather than unit when charging 12". Obviously big deal whether 6 knights will attack 6x2+4 or 6x(2+4). Though albeit as far as I know no official clarification how it's supposed to work either. Where's the FAQ for AT :(

There is no official clarification, no, except main designer James Hewitt's word on it in Facebook (saying it's per unit, in his interpretation counting the extra dice by the least movement in the banner). The other factor pointing in this direction is the way knights attack: as they offensively behave like one body (with the caveat of working like Paired weapons in regards to range, modifiers and such), why on Earth would they accrue massively more dice than other bodies? Any singular attack that starts to throw over a dozen dice in this game is suspect, let alone the possibility of a knight banner of insignificant gnats throwing 30+ high strength death around. No, just no.

And facebook posts aren't all that acceptable.

Let's say I play against new guy who doesn't know this. Basically all he would have to go is MY WORD. I have heard of that statement(btw 2nd hand...So I actually can't even verify having seen that in my own eyes...) but I could not show it. Opponent would have to trust my word. Hell I have only dakkadakka posts to go with. I'm forced to rely on 2nd hand information by unknown people I don't know in medium(internet) known for containing lots of false information.

GW really needs to put up FAQ and stop this "official answers can be found in random FB posts" policy. It does nothing good.

Have you seen that Hewit's post yourself? Can you provide link to it?

There is this discussion on reddit, I bookmarked it as it is interesting and contains some clarifications:

https://www.reddit.com/r/adeptustitanicus/comments/96gbwu/i_designed_the_new_edition_of_adeptus_titanicus/

An official FAQ would indeed be best.

tneva82 wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Claims 4 attacks per knight rather than unit when charging 12". Obviously big deal whether 6 knights will attack 6x2+4 or 6x(2+4). Though albeit as far as I know no official clarification how it's supposed to work either. Where's the FAQ for AT :(

There is no official clarification, no, except main designer James Hewitt's word on it in Facebook (saying it's per unit, in his interpretation counting the extra dice by the least movement in the banner). The other factor pointing in this direction is the way knights attack: as they offensively behave like one body (with the caveat of working like Paired weapons in regards to range, modifiers and such), why on Earth would they accrue massively more dice than other bodies? Any singular attack that starts to throw over a dozen dice in this game is suspect, let alone the possibility of a knight banner of insignificant gnats throwing 30+ high strength death around. No, just no.

And facebook posts aren't all that acceptable.

Let's say I play against new guy who doesn't know this. Basically all he would have to go is MY WORD. I have heard of that statement(btw 2nd hand...So I actually can't even verify having seen that in my own eyes...) but I could not show it. Opponent would have to trust my word. Hell I have only dakkadakka posts to go with. I'm forced to rely on 2nd hand information by unknown people I don't know in medium(internet) known for containing lots of false information.

GW really needs to put up FAQ and stop this "official answers can be found in random FB posts" policy. It does nothing good.

Have you seen that Hewit's post yourself? Can you provide link to it?

I asked him, here's a link too: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1438572432880002/permalink/2265558276848076/

Sooooo...Post in closed group...

That's what I'm talking about there not being official clarification. Comment in non-public group is not exactly one that is easy to use as proof. For example link you provided doesn't lead me to the post.

This is why official FAQ in official FAQ place would be needed.

Much like the da jump in T1 situation before codex came where the clarification was from GW facebook comment in thread MONTHS ago. Good luck finding it in few months and indeed I ran into trouble thanks to this when in tournament not only one of opponents but also organizers were unaware of that(no surprise...).

Baffling how there's still not been FAQ seeing GW has improved on that part.

I'm not saying it's an official clarification: I'm just saying that it's the correct way to play and in the spirit of the game's other mechanics, whereas the other, false interpretation produces results that are way off the scale of the game's other parts and thus easily spotted as such. James does not speak from GW authority, but is the one authority on rules I personally value and hold as the primary source. GW itself is currently silent.

An official FAQ might come at some point and clear this, the typo'd firing arc of the Warlord carapace gatlings and other such small touches, and it would be nice, but I see this as an already resolved issue which sadly gets propagated wrong on the official channel as WarCom folks are mostly enthusiastic, happy folk who don't really know any of the rules too deeply.

tneva82 wrote:
Claims 4 attacks per knight rather than unit when charging 12". Obviously big deal whether 6 knights will attack 6x2+4 or 6x(2+4). Though albeit as far as I know no official clarification how it's supposed to work either. Where's the FAQ for AT :(

I wondered the same thing from the article given what was discussed about the number of attacks knights get on the charge. It can get pretty nuts watching 3 or 4 Knights bring down a Warlord from some of what I’ve read.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daft Aider wrote:

 Fajita Fan wrote:
Legio Maracas has a certain ring to it.

Adeptus Mariachus

“Sound the war rattle!”
*shakashakashakashakashaka*

 Fajita Fan wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Claims 4 attacks per knight rather than unit when charging 12". Obviously big deal whether 6 knights will attack 6x2+4 or 6x(2+4). Though albeit as far as I know no official clarification how it's supposed to work either. Where's the FAQ for AT :(

I wondered the same thing from the article given what was discussed about the number of attacks knights get on the charge. It can get pretty nuts watching 3 or 4 Knights bring down a Warlord from some of what I’ve read.

You need to be at the exact distance to get the full attack bonus, and you can only charge in a straight line, not only that, but they also need to pass a 4+ command roll to issue charge order for Questoris banner, if you let this happen it is entirely you that play poorly.

A dual Belicosa WL would be pretty helpless against knights in melee, but it would still take them awhile to actually bring down one WL that way, but then again, it is your fault for not giving them the B(elicosa), you had 2 of it.

I’ve got a Khrone themed list to try with some close combat titans and I’ve got knights in there just to screen my brawler Reaver and Warlord.

Chopstick wrote:

 Fajita Fan wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Claims 4 attacks per knight rather than unit when charging 12". Obviously big deal whether 6 knights will attack 6x2+4 or 6x(2+4). Though albeit as far as I know no official clarification how it's supposed to work either. Where's the FAQ for AT :(

I wondered the same thing from the article given what was discussed about the number of attacks knights get on the charge. It can get pretty nuts watching 3 or 4 Knights bring down a Warlord from some of what I’ve read.

You need to be at the exact distance to get the full attack bonus, and you can only charge in a straight line, not only that, but they also need to pass a 4+ command roll to issue charge order for Questoris banner, if you let this happen it is entirely you that play poorly.

A dual Belicosa WL would be pretty helpless against knights in melee, but it would still take them awhile to actually bring down one WL that way, but then again, it is your fault for not giving them the B(elicosa), you had 2 of it.

Then again knights are small. They are more than small enough to hide behind most terrain.

Flipside is when they take down warlord they tend to die as well

Trading 3 knights for a Warlord is a great tradeoff though.

I'm not a gamer so this is probably a naive question, but I have read several times that titan CC weapons are deadly but hard to connect. Can you not just run in a reaver, screened by knights, to increase the chance that one or the other makes it into range? Or if you're especially cunning, have them approach at different vectors so that the enemy warlord must turn to engage one and be vulnerable to the other? Or are the fields of overlapping fire too effective in this game?

 Fajita Fan wrote:
Trading 3 knights for a Warlord is a great tradeoff though.

3 knights isn't enough generally enough though. They will hurt it but then get swatted away. 5 s7 hits doesn#t cut it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JWBS wrote:
I'm not a gamer so this is probably a naive question, but I have read several times that titan CC weapons are deadly but hard to connect. Can you not just run in a reaver, screened by knights, to increase the chance that one or the other makes it into range? Or if you're especially cunning, have them approach at different vectors so that the enemy warlord must turn to engage one and be vulnerable to the other? Or are the fields of overlapping fire too effective in this game?

Oh game is nice enough it's not that simple. Plenty of ways to approach it. Both ways are valid. Advantage in having them close to each other is ease of timing at the same time so if you deal with one the other is still alive and ready to mulch. OTOH having them both come from same direction means they can get in each others way and enemy has only one direction to cover. Coming from other directions means once enemy deals with one the other can be in bad angle giving easier time to get into contact but OTOH it means it's harder to sync them to come at same time so enemy can possibly deal with the one coming in first and then turn around and deal with the other.

And on subject of knight vs warlord generally to make charge with lots of attacks you need to move basically twice in a row. First move after warlod has moved into position and often this exposes you(afterall you can't charge from behind building as movement has to be direct line). And then if warlod moves first(remember it's 50-50) if you parked 9" away for maximum extra attacks(+3) warlord can actually back away leaving you outside the range! If you want to remove chance of that you move close enough he can't do that but then if warlord moves first he will either be first firing(possibly landing volcano cannon point blank) or if he doesn't have any ONE gun that would be worth it he might actually close the distance and prevent you from getting extra attacks all together.

Generally what I have found is 1 banner isn't quaranteed to get job done. 2 will do but they will often take heavy casualties. One game one side had 15 knights they did take down 2 reavers and warhounds. But in the end not single knight was alive. 6 died to enemy shooting, 9 died to titan's death throes.

Point wise it was actually pretty much dead even.

tneva82 wrote:

 Fajita Fan wrote:
Trading 3 knights for a Warlord is a great tradeoff though.

3 knights isn't enough generally enough though. They will hurt it but then get swatted away. 5 s7 hits doesn#t cut it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JWBS wrote:
I'm not a gamer so this is probably a naive question, but I have read several times that titan CC weapons are deadly but hard to connect. Can you not just run in a reaver, screened by knights, to increase the chance that one or the other makes it into range? Or if you're especially cunning, have them approach at different vectors so that the enemy warlord must turn to engage one and be vulnerable to the other? Or are the fields of overlapping fire too effective in this game?

Oh game is nice enough it's not that simple. Plenty of ways to approach it. Both ways are valid. Advantage in having them close to each other is ease of timing at the same time so if you deal with one the other is still alive and ready to mulch. OTOH having them both come from same direction means they can get in each others way and enemy has only one direction to cover. Coming from other directions means once enemy deals with one the other can be in bad angle giving easier time to get into contact but OTOH it means it's harder to sync them to come at same time so enemy can possibly deal with the one coming in first and then turn around and deal with the other.

And on subject of knight vs warlord generally to make charge with lots of attacks you need to move basically twice in a row. First move after warlod has moved into position and often this exposes you(afterall you can't charge from behind building as movement has to be direct line). And then if warlod moves first(remember it's 50-50) if you parked 9" away for maximum extra attacks(+3) warlord can actually back away leaving you outside the range! If you want to remove chance of that you move close enough he can't do that but then if warlord moves first he will either be first firing(possibly landing volcano cannon point blank) or if he doesn't have any ONE gun that would be worth it he might actually close the distance and prevent you from getting extra attacks all together.

Generally what I have found is 1 banner isn't quaranteed to get job done. 2 will do but they will often take heavy casualties. One game one side had 15 knights they did take down 2 reavers and warhounds. But in the end not single knight was alive. 6 died to enemy shooting, 9 died to titan's death throes.

Point wise it was actually pretty much dead even.

Well, sounds likea lot of decent action and options anyway. Like I say I'm no gamer but I occasionally watch a game of 40K on youtube and I'm dissappointed to see that one or both armies army often hug the edge of the board where it's deployed and remains stationary, shooting at the other guys.

JWBS wrote:
Well, sounds likea lot of decent action and options anyway. Like I say I'm no gamer but I occasionally watch a game of 40K on youtube and I'm dissappointed to see that one or both armies army often hug the edge of the board where it's deployed and remains stationary, shooting at the other guys.

AT has different missions that ensure there is generally some movement to do for all. Add to that decent terrain and while you can go for stand off and shoot it's not neccessarily best strategies. Indeed there's basically 2 reasons to stand still. First fire order to allow you to shoot ONE gun in movement phase rather than move. While it can be nice it's not be all end all. Most useful when enemy titan is NEARLY out of shields and you expect just one more fire from missille launchers to knock down shields. Knocking down shields is big. Apart from the sheer fact that any shooting against shieldless titan HURTS after movement there's repair phase. If your shields are up each roll of 5+ will repair one shield. On warlord with 4 dice to roll at least 1 will be very likely. If all shields are down however first blip requires 6...Which even on 4 dice is not that likely. Thus knocking down shields can be huge difference. So it's more of situational boost. Other times to use first fire would be if you have banner of knights about to charge you, you have first move and can't back out.

Other reason to stand still is emergency repairs giving you immediate extra repair rolls(so doubling # repairs this turn) and with that set with +1. This is pretty much essential to restore shields for titan without shields. In particular for reaver with 3 dice. 3 dice needing 6...Yep not good odds.

So there's 1 situational reason to stand still and 1 forced by opponent. Emergency repair means you either move OR shoot. However emergency repairs on all titans is rather hard to force as titans are so tough generally you need to focus some serious fire but with emergency repairs and voids to full(boost void shield saves) titan can be VERY TOUGH indeed to take down...But then you either move or shoot. So for example one game I had 2 of my warlords bombard his warlord. He was not doing much of anything and moved indeed 4" all game(first turn) and then was locked in place under bombardment. Didn't make much of a dent though. And rest of his army was able to move. I could not lock all his units like that(if I could I would likely win the game).

Basically games I have found are decided on 2 things. Manouvering and reactor management.

tneva82, what sort of terrain are you finding gives the most interesting games?

I'm afraid I'm normally one to overdo such things, so any input from experience is welcome!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
tneva82, what sort of terrain are you finding gives the most interesting games?

I'm afraid I'm normally one to overdo such things, so any input from experience is welcome!

Well we might be overdoing things as well but couple boards we have played at:







Looking at other people's post I think we are definitely on the heavier side of terrain.

Honestly AT is like Necromunda and Killteam - it wants terrain heavy boards. Sure you've got some clear areas and lines to shoot down, but by and large those scale of games work best when there's a lot of stuff to break up line of sight. Where knight and reavers can sneak and hide and manoeuvre around to get up close or get a good angle or pincer a warlord.

Often with those games if you're playing on very light terrain tables the experience can be far less entertaining because it often amounts to a gunline vs gunline and close combat options become far less viable (because you will just get shot to bits at range)

We've been playing with more terrain on the board, but not all of it is LOS-blocking - there's some lower buildings to act as "difficult ground" for movement, or that will shield Knights but not Titans.

We've been using 4Ground's 10mm Jesserair range (designed fro Dropzone Commander), and we've found some buildings are tall enough to grant cover to a Warlord, but narrow enough that its guns can stick out either side.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
We've been playing with more terrain on the board, but not all of it is LOS-blocking - there's some lower buildings to act as "difficult ground" for movement, or that will shield Knights but not Titans.

We've been using 4Ground's 10mm Jesserair range (designed fro Dropzone Commander), and we've found some buildings are tall enough to grant cover to a Warlord, but narrow enough that its guns can stick out either side.

Heh. The buildings we use can easily block warlord from LOS completely. You can use it to get cover but apart from trouble of getting back to move it invariably means one arm being blocked out of LOS.

What I have been thinking is we need some terrain that isn't quite as tall. Warlord visible over it but of course -1 or -2 to hit. But ATM all the buildings are hide warlord fully.

What is fun though is adding few narrow pathways where warlord can't move. Like on the 3rd picture I had. See the reaver between buildings. Warlord would need to be side stepping and at the rate of 3" a turn if pushing that takes time...

Not too much though. Terrain shouldn't be too much of a hindrance that it would railroad all movements.

Oh, there's plenty of buildings that do completely hide a Warlord; just some where it's like trying to "hide" behind a lamp post.

One thing I noticed; Since a Reaver is on a base that's 70mm front-to-back and a Warhound is on an 80mm base, you could have low structures that a Warhound can clear and a Reaver cannot.

https://twitter.com/The_M0thman/status/1056547042208681984

https://twitter.com/The_M0thman/status/1063610117210427392

Two twitter threads This is sorts of terrain we use

2 big apartment blocks that fully hide a warlord (apart from hole at bottom knights and warhounds can go through)

2 long buildings that hide reavers

1 huge wide building that covers half a warlord and fully a warhound, then tons of smaller buildings.

we tried playing lighter but found that it makes knights pointless as they just get a warlord split firing 2 volcano canons and deleting them. Alot of the smaller buildings are big enough to give cover for large titans but not enough to hide them from sight. we find it adds alot more having to consider terrain for tactics than just standing in nearly open.

Cool, thanks for the input all

Looks like it's definitely a 'play some games, develop a feel for it' type affair.

Will probs just get some of the official AT terrain, and work from there, adding in different brands as needed.

The red beam 8mm factory is also pretty good based on pic I saw of it on the facebook group £20 and pretty huge

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Cool, thanks for the input all

Looks like it's definitely a 'play some games, develop a feel for it' type affair.

Will probs just get some of the official AT terrain, and work from there, adding in different brands as needed.

Official AT terrain is rather expensive though if you want warlord hiding one...Which is why I went for the dropzone terrain one. The one on 3rd picture was from 1 set(about 30£ with shipping to Finland) and that didn't even use all I have.

Think I could get enough terrain for my taste by spending some 300-400€ on official ones. Way too much. More titans rather!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Cool, thanks for the input all

Looks like it's definitely a 'play some games, develop a feel for it' type affair.

Will probs just get some of the official AT terrain, and work from there, adding in different brands as needed.

tneva82 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Cool, thanks for the input all

Looks like it's definitely a 'play some games, develop a feel for it' type affair.

Will probs just get some of the official AT terrain, and work from there, adding in different brands as needed.

Official AT terrain is rather expensive though if you want warlord hiding one...Which is why I went for the dropzone terrain one. The one on 3rd picture was from 1 set(about 30£ with shipping to Finland) and that didn't even use all I have.

Think I could get enough terrain for my taste by spending some 300-400€ on official ones. Way too much. More titans rather!

Yeah, the Dropzone commander buildings are PDFs on their website if you google them, I printed them for a demo game at work.

I've also seen one game played at my club where they used hills and forests - it doesn't have to be urban warfare.

I also think a lot of the Sector Mechanicus 40k terrain would work, if you hide the dials and control panels and suchlike; the assorted pipes, haemotropic reactors, the chimneys, domes and tanks, etc, would all make a layout reminiscent of the landscapes featured in the original game.

Well yeah but not many have suitable hills and forests that really block los. Would need pretty thick forrest to cover 25% of warlord.

Urban is easier to get good terrain for gaming

Trees of sufficient height are pretty easy to get hold of - and if not, it's not rocket science to say "this forest counts as being tall enough". Even Citadel Woods are probably high enough to lock LOS of a Warlord's arm weapons.

I use Dropzone buildings and Sector Mechanicus, does a good job.

I love the Civitas Imperalis designs but I've made some platicard buildings to save money. The materials came to about £3 and I still have loads of plasticard left over...

Only problem is that they are merely white cuboids. Not sure how to go about decorating them...

Even still, it would be nice to see more terrain pieces from GW.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Trees of sufficient height are pretty easy to get hold of - and if not, it's not rocket science to say "this forest counts as being tall enough". Even Citadel Woods are probably high enough to lock LOS of a Warlord's arm weapons.

It's not just height that's needed but width. That titan is big and wide. And remember AT has true LOS as the designer specifically wanted(he was against no premeasuring but pro-tlos)

Looks like the Realm of Battle boards are going up for pre-order today, they're showing up on the banner on the FW site but don't yet seem to be showing up in the store itself so no prices yet. Though I'm assuming about £80 each based on the similar 25mm scenery tiles.

Edit - Now up and yep, £80 each, or you can buy a bundle of 4 for £345! A new GW record then, usually their bundles don't save you anything (although to be fair Forgeworld's usually do), this one costs £25 more! Wonder if it's the bundle or the tiles that are mispriced!

Another edit - Actually, just realised the bundle includes one set of the plastic buildings, so not overpriced, but no discount. Guess I'll just get 2 tiles for now then and hope they release some different ones in the future, probably would have bought 4 if there was a discount for doing so.

Set of four includes some plakky buildings

Easily missed though!

The bundle also contains a box of Civitas buildings. It still doesn't save you anything, though.

Is it just me, or does the board look warped?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Set of four includes some plakky buildings

Easily missed though!

Yep, just noticed that when I actually read the description, pretty difficult to spot from the picture. Not a great deal then considering the buildings can be picked up cheaper in the sector bundle (or from a 3rd party (or both, for a double discount)) and that one set of buildings is nowhere near enough to be useful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Strangely, the beta sector and the bundle now seem to have completely disappeared from the FW site, though the alpha is still available. Possibly just sold out but that would seem an unusual way to handle it for a FW item on pre-order, unless there is a difference in manufacturing the tiles and they don't think they'll be able to ship them fast enough to make it sensible to take any more orders.

I was really hoping for something better on the scenery front, never been a fan of those overpriced FW boards and this is one of the worst I have seen, not sure how they justify £80.


As people on FB keep saying, if they bring out some decent LOS blocking scenery for AT people would be all over it.

Mystery solved!

Just had my order for the beta section cancelled, apparently there is an issue with it and it has been temprarily pulled from sale. Will keep my order for the alpha section so I can build some of the plastic buildings to fit it!

Suprising that they thought it was fine to go on sale this morning then within a couple of hours found a problem though, especially as the boards have been around for months, unless they started packing orders and noticed the problem. I don't know if these are made in house or outsourced (as they are manufactured differently to normal FW stuff I believe), maybe they got a bad batch from their manufacturer.

£20 gift voucher for the inconvenience though.

Tavis75 wrote:


£20 gift voucher for the inconvenience though.

Bonus !

I must admit, you cannot fault their customer service.

I think a lot of the terrain boards and Endless spells (same material at least in the Maligan Sorcery box) are made externally. Same as when they got a bad batch of the new AOS terrain and had to do a quick "er we changed the product without telling anyone in art or advertising" when its clear it was a packing mistake on all the products.

Methinks GW is dealing with the pains of an external factory - possibly in China - which if anyone follows any KS will know, they can be rather notorious for lower quality control standards.

It would also explain why the product going on sale is when they spotted the error as chances are the shipments only landed recently so they only spotted whatever problem it is now rather than weeks ago when they were in production/being shipped around the world.

factories with sloppy QC are also usually pretty good in cherry picking the best stuff to send out for approval so you usually only realise you've been stitched up (accidentally or deliberately) when stuff arrives

 Rayvon wrote:

Tavis75 wrote:


£20 gift voucher for the inconvenience though.

Bonus !

I must admit, you cannot fault their customer service.

Just their currency conversion rates.

The Cerastus will be on pre-order tomorrow and I can't wait!

I'm hoping they will be £20, but if as much as £25 I might push the boat out...

Anyone else getting them?

My store quoted me at £16 on pre order so should be about £20 normally

Ok, so that's the same price as Questoris Knights. I'm getting some for sure, but don't know if I will be getting them at launch.

How many will you guys field in a banner? I'm thinking maybe just 3 since that's where the ion shield benefits max out. Might have to split a box with a friend.

Told store to put 2 boxes for me. Terminals they told they can't get though :/

4 seems good amount to banner so first casualty doesn't reduce save for when i don't get hit by volcano

Oh right, need to get terminals too. :(

I'm gonna get a couple boxes of Lancers and just get them painted for now, then get the terminals later alongside the weapon upgrade sprues as they'll likely be direct-only too.

 Mothman wrote:
My store quoted me at £16 on pre order so should be about £20 normally

Hurrah!

My warhounds will take a while to assemble( casting some pieces in order to make one or two more ) so the Lancers will fill the painting gap quite nicely.

Cheers for that.

Ok, so pre-orders are up on the NZ site.

The terminal pack comes with 2 Questoris Terminals and 3 Cerastus ones. Same price as the other terminal packs.

Transfer sheets are up for Legio Mortis and Gryphonicus. The latter was a bit of a surprise for me. Haven't seen any teasers for them. Price seems fair though.

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/catalog/product/920x950/99510308011_LegioGryphonicusTransfers01.jpg

SamusDrake wrote:
The Cerastus will be on pre-order tomorrow and I can't wait!

I'm hoping they will be £20, but if as much as £25 I might push the boat out...

Anyone else getting them?

£10 per model? Why would this be ok, when the other Knights are £5 each? Let alone £12.50 per.

Edit / the £15 Knight stes are from discounter sites. Still, 2 Kinights for the price of 3, doesn't seem like a deal I'd be thrilled with.

JWBS wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:
The Cerastus will be on pre-order tomorrow and I can't wait!

I'm hoping they will be £20, but if as much as £25 I might push the boat out...

Anyone else getting them?

£10 per model? Why would this be ok, when the other Knights are £5 each? Let alone £12.50 per.

Edit / the £15 Knight stes are from discounter sites. Still, 2 Kinights for the price of 3, doesn't seem like a deal I'd be thrilled with.

To be fair, these are a third taller each, and come on 50mm bases instead of 40mm.

It’s not really a good deal or anything but the kits are fairly comparable in terms of plastic.

JWBS wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:
The Cerastus will be on pre-order tomorrow and I can't wait!

I'm hoping they will be £20, but if as much as £25 I might push the boat out...

Anyone else getting them?

£10 per model? Why would this be ok, when the other Knights are £5 each? Let alone £12.50 per.

Edit / the £15 Knight stes are from discounter sites. Still, 2 Kinights for the price of 3, doesn't seem like a deal I'd be thrilled with.

The longer knees need more plastic so there’s a higher production cost.

JWBS wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:
The Cerastus will be on pre-order tomorrow and I can't wait!

I'm hoping they will be £20, but if as much as £25 I might push the boat out...

Anyone else getting them?

£10 per model? Why would this be ok, when the other Knights are £5 each? Let alone £12.50 per.

Edit / the £15 Knight stes are from discounter sites. Still, 2 Kinights for the price of 3, doesn't seem like a deal I'd be thrilled with.

Just for the record I was suggesting GW prices. I get my stuff through Wayland Games with a 20% discount, so I guess these chaps will be £15.90.

Having received a pack of warhounds this week, the Knights do indeed have far less bang-for-buck, when you weigh up £20 for one sprue against £40 for three sprues( The Reaver even more so ). That said, the Warhounds do cost a lot more in time and effort to assemble and paint. I quoted £25( before discount, of course ) as an absolute maximum I would be willing to spend to save time.

Its worth mentioning at this point that I budget this hobby at about £30-£40 a month. I got paid today and for now, I'm only interested in some magnets for my warhounds and these Lancer chaps, which will only be slightly over £20 with discount included. Although I'm not quite getting as much bang-for-buck here, I go into next month with more money in the kitty than I usually have left...

The gryphonicus transfer sheet is very nice

SamusDrake wrote:

JWBS wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:
The Cerastus will be on pre-order tomorrow and I can't wait!

I'm hoping they will be £20, but if as much as £25 I might push the boat out...

Anyone else getting them?

£10 per model? Why would this be ok, when the other Knights are £5 each? Let alone £12.50 per.

Edit / the £15 Knight stes are from discounter sites. Still, 2 Kinights for the price of 3, doesn't seem like a deal I'd be thrilled with.

Just for the record I was suggesting GW prices. I get my stuff through Wayland Games with a 20% discount, so I guess these chaps will be £15.90.

Having received a pack of warhounds this week, the Knights do indeed have far less bang-for-buck, when you weigh up £20 for one sprue against £40 for three sprues( The Reaver even more so ). That said, the Warhounds do cost a lot more in time and effort to assemble and paint. I quoted £25( before discount, of course ) as an absolute maximum I would be willing to spend to save time.

Its worth mentioning at this point that I budget this hobby at about £30-£40 a month. I got paid today and for now, I'm only interested in some magnets for my warhounds and these Lancer chaps, which will only be slightly over £20 with discount included. Although I'm not quite getting as much bang-for-buck here, I go into next month with more money in the kitty than I usually have left...

No mate I understand, as a hobbysit and not a gamer, I look at a kit in therm sof plastic volume / aesthetic value. These lancers seem to be "Character" priced money. Problem is, they're not much bigger / better looking than standard Knights. So personally I'm not satisfied that they're 3 for 2. I own several 40K knights, and also some FW Cerastus. The Cerastus are more expensive, but you can kind of see where the money has gone, they're huge, and I'm satisfied with the aesthetic value and complexity of these kits. Still, I don't really see the value of the little verisons. Sure they're a bit taller, and maybe they're a bit better in-game, but at £20 for two (RRP), they're not loooking like a good value prospect from a hobbyist standpoint in comparison to standard Knight patterns (which TBH aren't the greatest in terms of plastic volume anyway. I like the price of a BB team / necro gang far more than I like the price of an AT Knight detachment).

JWBS wrote:


No mate I understand, as a hobbysit and not a gamer, I look at a kit in therm sof plastic volume / aesthetic value. These lancers seem to be "Character" priced money. Problem is, they're not much bigger / better looking than standard Knights. So personally I'm not satisfied that they're 3 for 2. I own several 40K knights, and also some FW Cerastus. The Cerastus are more expensive, but you can kind of see where the money has gone, they're huge, and I'm satisfied with the aesthetic value and complexity of these kits. Still, I don't really see the value of the little verisons. Sure they're a bit taller, and maybe they're a bit better in-game, but at £20 for two (RRP), they're not loooking like a good value prospect from a hobbyist standpoint in comparison to standard Knight patterns (which TBH aren't the greatest in terms of plastic volume anyway. I like the price of a BB team / necro gang far more than I like the price of an AT Knight detachment).

I have to agree that GW could have pushed the boat out further perhaps by providing a second, smaller sprue with alternative weapons and accessories. The Questoris Knights, for example, could also have had power fists and missile launchers( that sit on top the carapace ).

When you look at the Warhound and Reaver sprues, in comparison, they have too many left over components to the point where you could make additional units with a bit of casting and sculpting. But with the Knights there are no options at all.

I'm not looking to argue the right or wrong of it, but it seems clear that they intended to do weapons and accessories add-ons for both the Titans and the Knights.

I'm just sad that it means I have to wait longer to model Titans with the load outs that I want >:-P

I'm waiting on the Knights bits. I picked up 8 boxes of Knights for dirt cheap from some local stores today during the sales and they are off sitting on the side till added bits means I can make steps toward Epic Knight Household army

AUD$50 for the box.

That's $25 for a tiny little lancer.

LOL!

Looking at the sprue I think it might be possible to kitbash Questoris and Cerastus bit.

 Fajita Fan wrote:

JWBS wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:
The Cerastus will be on pre-order tomorrow and I can't wait!

I'm hoping they will be £20, but if as much as £25 I might push the boat out...

Anyone else getting them?

£10 per model? Why would this be ok, when the other Knights are £5 each? Let alone £12.50 per.

Edit / the £15 Knight stes are from discounter sites. Still, 2 Kinights for the price of 3, doesn't seem like a deal I'd be thrilled with.

The longer knees need more plastic so there’s a higher production cost.

It's price of molds. Same sized sprue with 2 knights. To have 3 knights would need another sprue which would double box price.


Plastic itseif is essentially free. In plastic models it's the mold that costs

BRAND NEW TITAN MODEL!



It's a walking artillery cannon! The Warbringer
https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/VigilusWeekender-Nov24-Warbringer12jvfsdh.jpg

Whilst its lower arms look a little small its a fantastic looking walking artillery platform. Interesting to note its got anti-air guns

 Overread wrote:
BRAND NEW TITAN MODEL!

Spoiler:

It's a walking artillery cannon! The Warbringer
https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/VigilusWeekender-Nov24-Warbringer12jvfsdh.jpg

Whilst its lower arms look a little small its a fantastic looking walking artillery platform. Interesting to note its got anti-air guns

...for Warhammer 40,000, not Adeptus Titanicus.

Indeed, but how long before we see it appear for AT?
My feeling is the proportions are a bit off, the arms' weapons are too small, but I like the head.

"A little small"...

It's likely just the angle of the picture, but it looks laughably stubby as it stands. The siege cannon thingy on its shoulders is cool and all, but my Emperor those arms need help. Luckily that is easily fixed if they end up making an AT release for it at some point.

Yup, £20, marked down at £15.90 with Wayland.

Definitely not paying the Questoris box price for only two of those hideous looking new Knights. GW can take a hike on that one.

Now I'm not into AT for the Knights anyway so it's ok. Bring on the new Reaver

 Overread wrote:
BRAND NEW TITAN MODEL!

Spoiler:

It's a walking artillery cannon! The Warbringer
https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/VigilusWeekender-Nov24-Warbringer12jvfsdh.jpg

Whilst its lower arms look a little small its a fantastic looking walking artillery platform. Interesting to note its got anti-air guns

Yeah, it’s a Reaver with a Quake Cannon on the Carapace mount, more or less. Same six void shields so it’ll be interesting to see what the trade-off is. Probably as slow as a Warlord... be interesting to see if it counts as a Reaver or Warlord for the purposes of Maniple composition.

Or part of own maniple

doing the rounds :

Pretty ugly Titan: The lines on a few of the components are more rounded than their surroundings to the point of looking more cartoonish than the other details on the same model. Kind of an aesthetic clash going on there. On the plus side, it’s not -inherently- ugly, the inevitable 6mm version could theoretically integrate it’s lines better.

Anyhow, got my four knight Lancers and their accessories lined up.

 TBD wrote:
Definitely not paying the Questoris box price for only two of those hideous looking new Knights. GW can take a hike on that one.

I caved and bought four Cerastus knights for £32. It's steep compared to the cheaper-than-expected Questoris set, but pretty comparable to lots of other GW kits I've bought before, like Zoanthropes or Kataphrons.

However I just went and made a cart on the main GW site of all the direct-only stuff I 'need' to use the AT models I own (weapon cards, command terminals, plus Gryphonicus transfers). Comes to almost £65 in total for essentially a small pile of card and paper. THAT'S what GW can take a hike on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

changemod wrote:
Pretty ugly Titan: The lines on a few of the components are more rounded than their surroundings to the point of looking more cartoonish than the other details on the same model. Kind of an aesthetic clash going on there. On the plus side, it’s not -inherently- ugly, the inevitable 6mm version could theoretically integrate it’s lines better.

I'm not a fan of the head, but I do recognise it as a callback to some of the early titan designs. If I ever get one of these for AT it'll definitely get one of my spare Warlord heads instead.

Reaver guns are too small for the big body, it look like a t-rex of the titan.

On the other note, thanks the emperor the admech finally keep up on modern tech and gave it some more guns.

Really like that new Titan, its got a stubby brutality to it. Reminds me of some of the black and white artwork in the original Titanicus game. Looking forward to getting an nu AT scaled version.

It looks like the left arm is the Reaver laser blaster, while the right is something new. With the arms looking a bit undersized I'm guessing its somewhere between the Reaver and Warlord in size?

The double barrelled name is interesting. Could it be that either "Warbringer" or "Nemesis" is the name of the body type while the other refers to this specific configuration?

Ooops I didn't even notice - which I think goes a long way to show how great GW have been with the detailing on their AT titans! Still I look forward to seeing that monster in AT!

Also I wonder if a side view of it might improve it, its got that hunched look so if its back and shoulders are longer back then it might even it out proportion wise.

It just seems a bit top-heavy, and the Reaver arms don't help with that. I'd have liked to see it with larger feet and bulked out lower leg pistons/armour, to make it seem a smidge more stable.

Hmm, I don't know how I feel about the Warbringer. Something about the size of the dorsal cannon versus the short arms made me think at first glance that it was a fan-made photoshop.

I don’t like it either but I had figured we’d see an artillery class titan at some point but didn’t think they’d make it look that kitbashed. It looks like a conversion.

There are more pics on Battle Bunnies, it looks better from other angles than the one WHC used.

http://battlebunnies.blogspot.com/2018/11/warbringer-nemesis-new-28mm-titan.html

Mendi Warrior wrote:
There are more pics on Battle Bunnies, it looks better from other angles than the one WHC used.

http://battlebunnies.blogspot.com/2018/11/warbringer-nemesis-new-28mm-titan.html

Bob from War of Sigmar posted a link to facebook video as wellhttps://war-of-sigmar.herokuapp.com/bloggings/3453(its in the comments)

I do like the fact that a primarily support Titan has anti-air defences.

Oh yes its back section is suitable enlarged and elongated! I do agree they missed a trick with having an extra large rear leg segment to help stabilize it when it fires; but otherwise fantastic!

Now to wait the year or so before its in AT (at least as its a recent design we can assume they've already got all the data to convert and scale it down!)

The new Titan looks like a robot Tyrion Lannister carrying his enormous robot cock around on his back

Couldn't think of a metaphor that worked then?

Can't help but feel that this new Warbringer is a hell of a revision of something ancient. Except the head

I must have missed the episode where Tyrion had an enormous robot cock.


I really like the look of that new titan, looks like walking artillery and really reminds me of the old artwork, cant wait to see it in AT. Not really arsed about the Cerastus knights, they look terrible in my opinion, only come with two weapons anyway and il need to buy terminals so I think il just wait until I see the Porphyrion released, otherwise il go without extra knights.

 zedmeister wrote:
Can't help but feel that this new Warbringer is a hell of a revision of something ancient. Except the head

Think you might be on to something there.

https://www.facebook.com/Garro30k/posts/2061207247233194

The Garro 360 view of it helps give a better idea of the titan

Im wondering on its rules, wonder if it will get a bigger template (hope not my friend has manage to scatter 3 different volcano canon shots that scattered ontop of my knights insta killing them in last 2 games, I dont want him having more chances of that happening)

I could see it being a bigger template but maybe strength 8-10 with ordanance, those sorts of artillery pieces are either bunker busters or to kill infantry not so much anti titan id imagine. I kinda think it maybe future proofing for when either light tanks could be a thing (same as the flamethrowers and sub strength 4 guns. This could also go for the AA guns, which could be in future we get some aircraft, old titanicus had spotter planes as a shoulder module, its aa guns could be listed in similar ways the defensor guns are on warlord

looking at the guns and warlord stats there is space for nearly everything to be 1 higher than a reaver putting this square in the middle. That goes for guns aswell, warlord ones are normaly +2 strength over reavers
so ws5+ bs 3+ soeed 3/5 turns 1/2 4 servitors
starting at 12 head, 11 body, 13 legs for armour 5 voids
command 4+

guns (all 10+ to damage)
melta-strength 11-12
volcano canon-strength 11 blast 3"
gatling- 6 strength 6

I could see this titan as becoming more of a "anti small titans/knights" in future if big gun is around strength 8-10 with one of the old apoc templates, with maybe terrain destroying bonus. Rather than it being anti titan like the warlords and reavers.

More views do make it look better. Still think the upper arms should be a tad longer, but it much improves the impression given by the first photo.

The new Volcano cannon does add a bit of length to the arm but hopefully there will be another option for the stupid carapace six shooter, stop putting flamer nozzles on cannons.

 Rolsheen wrote:
The new Volcano cannon does add a bit of length to the arm but hopefully there will be another option for the stupid carapace six shooter, stop putting flamer nozzles on cannons.

It's an update of the old epic version of the quake cannon. It's growing on me. Going to have to start saving. Not going to pay in dollars, but a friend is going to the UK next year and is willing to pick me up stuff.

What flamer nozzle? Surely you mean the focusing and/or accelerator field generator array?