Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/08/19 15:31:16


Post by: Mr_Rose


A couple of questions that came up while I was reading the AT rules yesterday so I thought I’d ask you guys if you had any answers:

1. Princeps Seniores Personal Trait #3 ‘Swift Killer’ (p.55): when it says ‘before you make an attack’ does that mean before a specific weapon attacks, or when the unit is activated to attack?

2. Legio Gryphonicus, Legion Specific Wargear: Gravatus Plating: when it says to add one to its armour, I’m assuming that means increase the values needed to deal damage, so effectively applying a -1 modifier to all incoming attacks, rather than adding an extra hole on the command terminal?

Thanks for any answers.

Also, if anyone else has questions please feel free to add them to this thread but try to keep up the numbering sequence.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/08/19 19:44:49


Post by: lagoon83


1) When the unit is activated to attack. Admittedly this could have been worded more clearly!

2) Well, there's one for the errata. It's effectively a -1 modifier.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/08/20 00:58:18


Post by: puzzledust


Hopefully this is the right thread to ask this, but I bought the big AT box and I'm wondering if I should just wait till more information comes out before I pick a Legio and Maniple.
I don't want to paint this whole thing up and decide I want to change it later and it's too expensive to have multiple Maniples for me. Any thoughts?


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/08/20 08:28:15


Post by: Mr_Rose


This was intended for rules questions principally so in that spirit I should note that you don’t have to stick to the same Maniple type across games. Two Warlords, a Reaver, and a pair of Warhounds should cover the minimum for all the ones in the book and will probably be good for many others.

As for the paint scheme, outside of a tournament I don’t think anyone will care too much if you use the “wrong” Legio tactics etc. as long as you don’t start trying to mix and match from multiple Legios. You can also come up with your own heraldry and Legio and use whichever set of rules best suits you in any context.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/08/20 08:41:10


Post by: General Helstrom


Two clarifications I've received on Reddit from James Hewitt:

1. A blast weapon fired at a target beyond its maximum range does not scatter as described in the Blast rules, but simply goes unresolved as per the normal Combat rules.

2. Ranged weapons can be fired in close combat, ie. when within 2" of the enemy. They then use WS instead of BS and get only a -1 modifier for targeted attacks as per the close combat rules. So, for example, Knights are not limited to just their melee weapons in close combat!


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/08/20 10:38:51


Post by: xttz


 General Helstrom wrote:
Two clarifications I've received on Reddit from James Hewitt:


In case anyone is still building their knights, I also asked him to clarify the rule phrasing that prevents two of them same weapon being used on a Knight:
https://www.reddit.com/r/adeptustitanicus/comments/96gbwu/i_designed_the_new_edition_of_adeptus_titanicus/e4i99lk

He said that wasn't intended behaviour, and it should give full benefit.



[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/08/20 12:57:08


Post by: MarkNorfolk


 General Helstrom wrote:
Two clarifications I've received on Reddit from James Hewitt:

1. A blast weapon fired at a target beyond its maximum range does not scatter as described in the Blast rules, but simply goes unresolved as per the normal Combat rules.

2. Ranged weapons can be fired in close combat, ie. when within 2" of the enemy. They then use WS instead of BS and get only a -1 modifier for targeted attacks as per the close combat rules. So, for example, Knights are not limited to just their melee weapons in close combat!


Yeah - there is no 40k style 'close combat'.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/08/20 13:07:53


Post by: Mr_Rose


On the ranged weapon thing; I’m honestly surprised it needed clarification? That was the basic gist I got from the rule in the first place… nice to know I wasn’t seeing things though.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/08/20 14:04:47


Post by: puzzledust


 Mr_Rose wrote:
This was intended for rules questions principally so in that spirit I should note that you don’t have to stick to the same Maniple type across games. Two Warlords, a Reaver, and a pair of Warhounds should cover the minimum for all the ones in the book and will probably be good for many others.

As for the paint scheme, outside of a tournament I don’t think anyone will care too much if you use the “wrong” Legio tactics etc. as long as you don’t start trying to mix and match from multiple Legios. You can also come up with your own heraldry and Legio and use whichever set of rules best suits you in any context.


Thanks for the info.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/08/20 14:46:13


Post by: General Helstrom


 Mr_Rose wrote:
On the ranged weapon thing; I’m honestly surprised it needed clarification? That was the basic gist I got from the rule in the first place… nice to know I wasn’t seeing things though.


Yeah me too... I asked because I saw some Let's Plays where they only used the melee weapons in melee.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/08/21 06:16:46


Post by: schoon


puzzledust wrote:
Hopefully this is the right thread to ask this, but I bought the big AT box and I'm wondering if I should just wait till more information comes out before I pick a Legio and Maniple.
I don't want to paint this whole thing up and decide I want to change it later and it's too expensive to have multiple Maniples for me. Any thoughts?

You can do quite a bit of testing already.

All the statistics exist, just not the models yet, so you should be able to get a feel for your own play style with proxy figures.

Will other Maniples / Legions come out in the future - yes - but you can probably get pretty close with what exists now.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/08/21 13:51:32


Post by: puzzledust


The rules state "A Titan can step over terrain if it's hight in inches is no more than half the scale value and the width of the terrain is less than the width of the base. The real problem comes when you realies a Warlord is scale 10 but only 5 or so inches high."

Does this mean it has to meet both conditions? I'm assuming yes it does.

So can you step up onto higher ground that is wider than your base but say only a half inch above ground level?

I'm asking this because the terrain tiles being made by Forgeworld have a lot of slightly elevated 1 story buildings that are very large.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/08/21 14:33:36


Post by: Imateria


puzzledust wrote:
The rules state "A Titan can step over terrain if it's hight in inches is no more than half the scale value and the width of the terrain is less than the width of the base. The real problem comes when you realies a Warlord is scale 10 but only 5 or so inches high."

Does this mean it has to meet both conditions? I'm assuming yes it does.

So can you step up onto higher ground that is wider than your base but say only a half inch above ground level?

I'm asking this because the terrain tiles being made by Forgeworld have a lot of slightly elevated 1 story buildings that are very large.

Yes, the use of the word "and" in that sentence would mean you need to meet both requirement.

The game sets out specific types of terrain and tells you to agree with your opponent before hand what everything will count as. Blocking terrain is the only thing you can't finish your movement on, so no Titans standing on top of buildings in a city scape, but you can destroy buildings and leave them as rubble which will then count as Difficult terrain which can be moved through. I've yet to see anything in the rules that covers elevation changes in terrain, but I imagine Difficult Terrain and wobbly model syndrome (could the Titan reasonably be expected to stand there if it wasn't for the large base) would cover it.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/08/21 15:07:58


Post by: puzzledust


 Imateria wrote:
puzzledust wrote:

Yes, the use of the word "and" in that sentence would mean you need to meet both requirement.

The game sets out specific types of terrain and tells you to agree with your opponent before hand what everything will count as. Blocking terrain is the only thing you can't finish your movement on, so no Titans standing on top of buildings in a city scape, but you can destroy buildings and leave them as rubble which will then count as Difficult terrain which can be moved through. I've yet to see anything in the rules that covers elevation changes in terrain, but I imagine Difficult Terrain and wobbly model syndrome (could the Titan reasonably be expected to stand there if it wasn't for the large base) would cover it.


Thanks for the definition of "and". Although I am an American, I do have a firm grasp of conjunctions. That wasn't the point of confusion as much as why you couldn't stop on terrain that comes up to your ankles, but I should have worded that better. I didn't understand why it had to be less than the size of your base. Now I see that they have other rules for landing on terrain and that was only for stepping over terrain. Thanks for clarifying that.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/08/27 16:06:18


Post by: bortass


Split fire states a unit cannot turn in the movement phase. A knight banner with split fire can't turn around any corners. This is the take we had last night when this came up. Has anyone seen any other clarification?

The scenario was my knights were behind a building and the only way to get targets was to weave between some other buildings with at least one 90 degree turn. So we just played it that the knights with split fire could move in a straight line in any direction since their front arc is 360 degrees.



[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/08/27 22:50:41


Post by: Thargrim


What do you guys think the normal points level for games is going to be, something like 1500 points? I'm probably gonna use battlescribe to draft up a couple lists. Seeing as how the game is new and I haven't had any experience with it i'm not 100% sure what loadouts are good/bad.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/08/27 23:00:10


Post by: BrianDavion


nevermind found it.

So here's a question that's been bugging me. ok I take a Legion Gryphonicus Venator Maniple, and opt to replace a warhound with another reaver, does that reaver count as a reaver per the maniple rules, or a warhound?


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/08/27 23:48:47


Post by: Mr_Rose


Hmm… good point. I can see it going both ways. I mean it is a Reaver… but it’s clearly ‘supposed’ to be used in a light(ish) role given the manoeuvre boost.
I’d say it counts as a Warhound for all maniple purposes but remains a Reaver for everything else, such as forming a squadron.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/08/27 23:57:51


Post by: Ecrivain


 Thargrim wrote:
What do you guys think the normal points level for games is going to be, something like 1500 points? I'm probably gonna use battlescribe to draft up a couple lists. Seeing as how the game is new and I haven't had any experience with it i'm not 100% sure what loadouts are good/bad.


1500 is a good maniple sized force for most lists I think.

Re: loadouts, you're going to want a solid mix of shield breakers (high dice) and armour cracking (low dice, high damage) weapons. Spread them out so when you lose a titan you don't lose the ability to bust voids or something. Reaver apocalypse launchers are going to be great because of their all round view. Things like the quake cannon will be interesting for their ability to control the movement of enemy titans a little, especially the big ones.

I think vulcans are going to be fun too.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/08/28 00:15:16


Post by: Mr_Rose


And even if you think they (slightly ironically) aren’t the best for Titan killing, always bring at least one Knight Deleter, sorry, Bellicosa Volcano Cannon.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/08/28 00:41:15


Post by: BrianDavion


 Mr_Rose wrote:
Hmm… good point. I can see it going both ways. I mean it is a Reaver… but it’s clearly ‘supposed’ to be used in a light(ish) role given the manoeuvre boost.
I’d say it counts as a Warhound for all maniple purposes but remains a Reaver for everything else, such as forming a squadron.


Yeah, I definatly think we should ask this for FAQ


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/08/28 21:45:36


Post by: crnaguja


So, I watched some battle report online and people seem to remove their weapons after they suffer detonation. But I can't seem to find that in the rulebook...


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/08/28 22:09:35


Post by: Lysenis


 crnaguja wrote:
So, I watched some battle report online and people seem to remove their weapons after they suffer detonation. But I can't seem to find that in the rulebook...
There is no such rule. card stays there. This means you could see TONS of detonatins. Also makes targeted Gatlings from Knights dangerous in 2" at the back



Automatically Appended Next Post:
My question is on Engage and Destroy. Does both players actually get points off of this?


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/08/29 15:48:15


Post by: zerosignal


Couple of rules points.

Does anyone else feel the random roll-off to see who chooses 1st player should actually just be alternating each turn?

Secondly, no pre-measuring... I have no idea what the designers are smoking, this is a terrible rule and so abusable, there is a reason we haven't seen awful mechanics like this in most tabletop wargames in the last 20 years.

Other than a few obvious errors, ruleset seems tight, anyone spotted anything broken?


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/08/29 16:01:35


Post by: Lysenis


zerosignal wrote:
Couple of rules points.

Does anyone else feel the random roll-off to see who chooses 1st player should actually just be alternating each turn?

Page 29 Step 1 of a Turn right under "Determine First Player" which is done EVERY turn


zerosignal wrote:

Secondly, no pre-measuring... I have no idea what the designers are smoking, this is a terrible rule and so abusable, there is a reason we haven't seen awful mechanics like this in most tabletop wargames in the last 20 years.


How is this broken? As far as I can see, all it means is that there is LESS time of people wasting their turns by figuring out EVERY SINGLE possible iteration of a move. Its refreshing because I dont have to wait 15 minutes for a player to figure out their move. Especially when Warhound Squadrons are here.

zerosignal wrote:

Other than a few obvious errors, ruleset seems tight, anyone spotted anything broken?

So far? Nope. Everything is designed to expand and its wide open to a ton of other races.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/08/29 16:59:45


Post by: crnaguja


 Lysenis wrote:
 crnaguja wrote:
So, I watched some battle report online and people seem to remove their weapons after they suffer detonation. But I can't seem to find that in the rulebook...
There is no such rule. card stays there. This means you could see TONS of detonatins. Also makes targeted Gatlings from Knights dangerous in 2" at the back



Automatically Appended Next Post:
My question is on Engage and Destroy. Does both players actually get points off of this?


Tnx.
About Engage and Destroy, it would seem (RAW) that secondary objective (Minimise loses) is indeed scored by both players. Strange, but I don't think its a typo because other secondary objectives leave no doubt that only one player scores. But maybe it's a case of bad proof reading. (because it makes no sense to me that opponent scores your objectives, but then again, what do I know? )


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/08/30 09:58:01


Post by: zerosignal


Anyone else think that 'merge void shields' is missing a paragraph?

The fluff description seems to suggest it risks both titan's void shields, but there is nothing in the rule which supports that.

Perhaps a burnout on one titan should drop the shields on both?


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/08/31 17:52:38


Post by: crnaguja


Not really a rules question, but do we have any idea which legions are going to get rules? Aside of gryphonicus and tempestus? I want to chose a color scheme (for a reaver )


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/08/31 18:36:16


Post by: Lysenis


 crnaguja wrote:
Not really a rules question, but do we have any idea which legions are going to get rules? Aside of gryphonicus and tempestus? I want to chose a color scheme (for a reaver )


Likely most of the scondary named ones. I could see Astorum getting rules for instance


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/09/01 03:47:25


Post by: Apostasus


A couple of maniple/squadron questions:

Does/can a squadron of 'hounds occupy one "slot" in a maniple organization chart? For example if I have a Gryphonicus Axiom maniple of a Warlord, a regular Reaver and a Reaver subbed for a Warhound (to get the go fast wargear), can I get a squadron of Warhounds for the remaining (single) Warhound slot?

If not, can "reinforcement" Warhounds be combined with a Warhound that is part of a maniple in a squadron? (Since squadron designation happens during deployment, I would think this answer would be "yes").

If they can be combined, does the "extra" 'hound benefit from the maniple rules (i.e. continuing orders after a failed roll for an Axiom)? To me, it would seem fair that squadron orders would/could benefit, but an individual order to the non-maniple 'hound would not...

Any insight would be greatly appreciated


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/09/01 07:01:21


Post by: Lysenis


[delete this post]


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/09/01 11:23:28


Post by: Mr_Rose


Apostasus wrote:
Does/can a squadron of 'hounds occupy one "slot" in a maniple organization chart? For example if I have a Gryphonicus Axiom maniple of a Warlord, a regular Reaver and a Reaver subbed for a Warhound (to get the go fast wargear), can I get a squadron of Warhounds for the remaining (single) Warhound slot?
No. Maniples are formed when you build your Battlegroup (army list) but squadrons are declared just before deployment.
Apostasus wrote:
If not, can "reinforcement" Warhounds be combined with a Warhound that is part of a maniple in a squadron? (Since squadron designation happens during deployment, I would think this answer would be "yes").
No. Reinforcing Titans are specifically prevented from squadroning with Maniple units. See p.54, 1st column, last sentence.
Spoiler:
Apostasus wrote:
If they can be combined, does the "extra" 'hound benefit from the maniple rules (i.e. continuing orders after a failed roll for an Axiom)? To me, it would seem fair that squadron orders would/could benefit, but an individual order to the non-maniple 'hound would not...
This situation can’t normally occur, so the rules don’t cover it. If you houserule otherwise, remember to account for this.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/09/01 19:28:14


Post by: Apostasus


 Mr_Rose wrote:

Apostasus wrote:
If not, can "reinforcement" Warhounds be combined with a Warhound that is part of a maniple in a squadron? (Since squadron designation happens during deployment, I would think this answer would be "yes").
No. Reinforcing Titans are specifically prevented from squadroning with Maniple units. See p.54, 1st column, last sentence.
]

Thanks, I didn't think to look in that section


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/09/01 19:47:35


Post by: Soulless


zerosignal wrote:
Anyone else think that 'merge void shields' is missing a paragraph?

The fluff description seems to suggest it risks both titan's void shields, but there is nothing in the rule which supports that.

Perhaps a burnout on one titan should drop the shields on both?


Seems pretty clear to me, at least how its written. But if you are suggesting a change or addition to it I cant really comment.
But if two titans is "touching base" and anyone of them is attacked, the defender gets to roll shield saves using the better target number of the two and any failed shield saves can be divided between the titans as the defender wishes.

Reading your comment again I suspect you arent wondering about the rules as much as wondering what the risk or disadvantage to merging shields would be. TBH, aside from needing the titans grouped up (leaving you less maneuverability) I also dont see much downsides. Though losing the positioning and maneuverability is perhaps big enough disadvantage?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Played a game tonight and something happened that I dont know if im playing correctly.


3 knights was issued a charge order and each of them ran the full 10" to get within "2 of a warlords rear arc.

They attacked with their chainswords that acumulated a dice value of 4 due to the charge.(+1 dice per full 3" of movement)

This ended up with 12 unshieldable dice hitting on 2+ with a strength of 9 (7+2 for the rear arc) hitting the body. Direct hits starting at armor rolls of 3+ and getting easier after a few hits.


The Warlord was destroyed, one-shotted by these 3 knights and their chainsword. It took two of them with it in the ensuing catastrophic damage but it didnt quite make up for the loss


So did I play this correctly? Ive read and reread the rules, trying to find if I did anything wrong because it just feels weird that 3 knights could take down a warlord like that, even in unlikely and badly played situations. But I cant find anything indicating a rules error in this.

So educate me, please!


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/09/01 23:18:43


Post by: Ecrivain


Soulless wrote:
3 knights was issued a charge order and each of them ran the full 10" to get within "2 of a warlords rear arc.

They attacked with their chainswords that acumulated a dice value of 4 due to the charge.(+1 dice per full 3" of movement)

This ended up with 12 unshieldable dice hitting on 2+ with a strength of 9 (7+2 for the rear arc) hitting the body. Direct hits starting at armor rolls of 3+ and getting easier after a few hits.


The Warlord was destroyed, one-shotted by these 3 knights and their chainsword. It took two of them with it in the ensuing catastrophic damage but it didnt quite make up for the loss


So did I play this correctly? Ive read and reread the rules, trying to find if I did anything wrong because it just feels weird that 3 knights could take down a warlord like that, even in unlikely and badly played situations. But I cant find anything indicating a rules error in this.

So educate me, please!


You played it right, mostly. However, as the attacks should all be rolled at once, you shouldn't have been able to do critical damage.
12 attacks, 2+, gives 10 hits.
No void saves.
Armour saves (stastically, ish) gives 3 superficial, 4 direct and 3 devastating. That's 10 pips of damage, applied to the main track and then the critical track.
10 pips of damage to the body is damage track in the red, critical track in the red. Any further damage is a roll on the catastrophic damage table if i'm remembering correctly.

So yeah, it's perfectly possible for knights in that very specific circumstance to kill a warlord.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/09/02 02:01:07


Post by: Apostasus


How are folks interpreting the venator maniple rule that "the Reaver" can take bonus shots with the Legio Gryphonicus rule that allows you to sub a Reaver for a Warhound?

My read is that only one Reaver (the one not subbed if wargear distinguishes them but either way has to be designated on the roster - same may the princeps seniores is?) would be allowed to take any/all bonus shots when a Warhound drops an enemy's shields.

Thoughts?


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/09/02 02:09:56


Post by: Thargrim


Apostasus wrote:
How are folks interpreting the venator maniple rule that "the Reaver" can take bonus shots with the Legio Gryphonicus rule that allows you to sub a Reaver for a Warhound?

My read is that only one Reaver (the one not subbed if wargear distinguishes them but either way has to be designated on the roster - same may the princeps seniores is?) would be allowed to take any/all bonus shots when a Warhound drops an enemy's shields.

Thoughts?


For now just house rule it, designate one reaver before the game starts/or make it the senior princeps/battlegroup leader who benefits. Until GW says otherwise, I would treat it this way.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/09/02 04:42:27


Post by: Apostasus


 Thargrim wrote:

For now just house rule it, designate one reaver before the game starts/or make it the senior princeps/battlegroup leader who benefits. Until GW says otherwise, I would treat it this way.


Related: is there anything that says the princeps seniores has to be in the biggest/ heaviest titan? I don't _think_ I'd run one in a 'hound, but I can see some benefits to running one in a Reaver (to put the bonus for command checks on a platform that might use/need it more, for example)


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/09/02 10:34:49


Post by: BrianDavion


Apostasus wrote:
 Thargrim wrote:

For now just house rule it, designate one reaver before the game starts/or make it the senior princeps/battlegroup leader who benefits. Until GW says otherwise, I would treat it this way.


Related: is there anything that says the princeps seniores has to be in the biggest/ heaviest titan? I don't _think_ I'd run one in a 'hound, but I can see some benefits to running one in a Reaver (to put the bonus for command checks on a platform that might use/need it more, for example)


I don't think so an d a senior Princips is gonna be the one with more experiance, one might choose to remain with a smaller titan. A Princips who has a partiuclar talent for light quick agressive tactics would be wasted in a warlord, just for example


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/09/03 08:10:39


Post by: schoon


Apostasus wrote:
Related: is there anything that says the princeps seniores has to be in the biggest/ heaviest titan? I don't _think_ I'd run one in a 'hound, but I can see some benefits to running one in a Reaver (to put the bonus for command checks on a platform that might use/need it more, for example)

Not that I've seen.

Given the Reaver's versatility, there's potential reason to put them there, but keeping them on the most durable titan is likely a good thing.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/09/04 22:33:21


Post by: TheSecretSquig


Question we had from our game tonight. 3 Knights charged the rear of a Warlord. Melee weapons allow for a targeted attack. But, physically, the Knights could only reach the Warlords legs so it didn't feel right that they could target the head for example?

Are there any thoughts on this or have we missed something in the rules?


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/09/06 13:40:10


Post by: AndrewGPaul


IIRC you can't target the head from behind, no matter what you are. Other than that, yes you can chainsaw off the carapace weapons, RAW. Feel free to come up with a justification.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/09/16 19:53:56


Post by: Nostromodamus


When you reignite void shields, is the marker moved to the start of the track (i.e. all shields came back online) or just one space to the left (i.e. just 1 shield came back online)?


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/09/16 19:57:14


Post by: Sherrypie


 Nostromodamus wrote:
When you reignite void shields, is the marker moved to the start of the track (i.e. all shields came back online) or just one space to the left (i.e. just 1 shield came back online)?


One. The action is the same (ie. move the marker one space to the left), it just gets a bit harder when you have to reignite the whole system.

Also, regarding the Venator maniple thing: James Hewitt has stated in Facebook that the intent is for any one Reaver from the same maniple to shoot, so if you have multiple (from Gryphonicus or similar effect) just pick one. This might get relevant in larger games, if you have several maniples.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/09/17 07:42:52


Post by: Aexcaliber


Ecrivain wrote:
Soulless wrote:
3 knights was issued a charge order and each of them ran the full 10" to get within "2 of a warlords rear arc.

They attacked with their chainswords that acumulated a dice value of 4 due to the charge.(+1 dice per full 3" of movement)

This ended up with 12 unshieldable dice hitting on 2+ with a strength of 9 (7+2 for the rear arc) hitting the body. Direct hits starting at armor rolls of 3+ and getting easier after a few hits.


The Warlord was destroyed, one-shotted by these 3 knights and their chainsword. It took two of them with it in the ensuing catastrophic damage but it didnt quite make up for the loss


So did I play this correctly? Ive read and reread the rules, trying to find if I did anything wrong because it just feels weird that 3 knights could take down a warlord like that, even in unlikely and badly played situations. But I cant find anything indicating a rules error in this.

So educate me, please!


You played it right, mostly. However, as the attacks should all be rolled at once, you shouldn't have been able to do critical damage.
12 attacks, 2+, gives 10 hits.
No void saves.
Armour saves (stastically, ish) gives 3 superficial, 4 direct and 3 devastating. That's 10 pips of damage, applied to the main track and then the critical track.
10 pips of damage to the body is damage track in the red, critical track in the red. Any further damage is a roll on the catastrophic damage table if i'm remembering correctly.

So yeah, it's perfectly possible for knights in that very specific circumstance to kill a warlord.


Possible, yes. But it doesn't feel it is meant to be like this. I bet, this will be errated soon.

Three knights killing a Warlord in one Turn. Why then not spaming Imperial Knights, instead of playing Titans?

The Attack Rules seem to be written for single Models, not for swadrons or banners. I hope this will be errated soon. A Bonus attack for one Titan or one Swadron or one Banner.

RAW it is also possible to attack a Head from behind without close combat range.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/09/17 11:32:58


Post by: tneva82


 Lysenis wrote:

How is this broken? As far as I can see, all it means is that there is LESS time of people wasting their turns by figuring out EVERY SINGLE possible iteration of a move. Its refreshing because I dont have to wait 15 minutes for a player to figure out their move. Especially when Warhound Squadrons are here.



Problem with premeasuring disallowed is that it 's basically newbie trap. Newbies have hard time. Experienced players know how to use terrain pieces, elbows, hands, board piece sizes(often boards are modular like 4'x2' pieces so it's easy to spot 24" gaps with those...) and basic trigonometry to "guess" spot on. "Guess" because it's almost "cheating" as it's just using basic trigonometry + above things to calculate it. No guessing whatsoever.

So newbies have hard time for fairly artificial rule. And ends up actually slowing thing as people spend up time doing mental calculations. So you actually end up waiting MORE time while opponent uses terrain pieces, elbows etc to calculate distances they could check within seconds.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/09/17 12:07:55


Post by: Sherrypie


Aexcaliber wrote:
Ecrivain wrote:
Soulless wrote:
3 knights was issued a charge order and each of them ran the full 10" to get within "2 of a warlords rear arc.

They attacked with their chainswords that acumulated a dice value of 4 due to the charge.(+1 dice per full 3" of movement)

This ended up with 12 unshieldable dice hitting on 2+ with a strength of 9 (7+2 for the rear arc) hitting the body. Direct hits starting at armor rolls of 3+ and getting easier after a few hits.


The Warlord was destroyed, one-shotted by these 3 knights and their chainsword. It took two of them with it in the ensuing catastrophic damage but it didnt quite make up for the loss


So did I play this correctly? Ive read and reread the rules, trying to find if I did anything wrong because it just feels weird that 3 knights could take down a warlord like that, even in unlikely and badly played situations. But I cant find anything indicating a rules error in this.

So educate me, please!


You played it right, mostly. However, as the attacks should all be rolled at once, you shouldn't have been able to do critical damage.
12 attacks, 2+, gives 10 hits.
No void saves.
Armour saves (stastically, ish) gives 3 superficial, 4 direct and 3 devastating. That's 10 pips of damage, applied to the main track and then the critical track.
10 pips of damage to the body is damage track in the red, critical track in the red. Any further damage is a roll on the catastrophic damage table if i'm remembering correctly.

So yeah, it's perfectly possible for knights in that very specific circumstance to kill a warlord.


Possible, yes. But it doesn't feel it is meant to be like this. I bet, this will be errated soon.

Three knights killing a Warlord in one Turn. Why then not spaming Imperial Knights, instead of playing Titans?

The Attack Rules seem to be written for single Models, not for swadrons or banners. I hope this will be errated soon. A Bonus attack for one Titan or one Swadron or one Banner.

RAW it is also possible to attack a Head from behind without close combat range.


Right, let's clear some things here. I don't think that is the correct way, exactly because it would accumulate bazillion dice too easily. So, rulebook to the rescue:

1) Knights are only ever activated as a unit.
2) Their attacking rules specify, that the knights attack as a unit and using the total of any one weapon as a single attack when they do (ie. a charging knight unit uses their melee weapon with N dice, N being their number as a base).
3) Charge order says that the unit gains extra dice for 3" increments moved. Thus, the knights attack N times plus the bonus, not N+N*bonus. Thus, 3 knights that run 10" get to attack as a unit with 3 + 3 = 6 dice, not 12.
4) This is futher strenghtened by the rulebook making a clear distinction between words "model" and "unit" for situations like this one.

Still dangerous, but not instantly crippling.

Another thing: no, the Head is not a viable target from behind RAW. On page 34-35 it says in determining the hit location, that you cannot hit a location you cannot see. This is indifferent to whether or not the attack is a shooting or melee attack. Just as you can't hit the left weapon from the right side, you cannot hit the Head from behind.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/09/17 12:12:49


Post by: AndrewGPaul


How does that work when one Knight moves 4", another moves 7" and the last moves 10"? We've been playing that the banner gets (1+1) + (1+2) + (1+3) attacks. How would you determine what the bonus number of dice is, if you only apply it once for the unit?


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/09/17 12:22:09


Post by: Sherrypie


 AndrewGPaul wrote:
How does that work when one Knight moves 4", another moves 7" and the last moves 10"? We've been playing that the banner gets (1+1) + (1+2) + (1+3) attacks. How would you determine what the bonus number of dice is, if you only apply it once for the unit?


Just use the longest distance run? Easy, elegant and still produces less dice. That is the distance that the unit moved.

Edit: Designer chimes in in Facebook:

"The Charge order gives a bonus to the unit, not the model. I get where RG is coming from - it's admittedly a bit ambiguous, when the Charge order refers to the distance the "model" moved. Obviously an official FAQ will have to come out at some point, but until then I'd recommend using the shortest distance moved by a model in the unit to determine how many extra attacks they get."


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/09/22 22:53:39


Post by: SirWeeble


 Lysenis wrote:

zerosignal wrote:

Secondly, no pre-measuring... I have no idea what the designers are smoking, this is a terrible rule and so abusable, there is a reason we haven't seen awful mechanics like this in most tabletop wargames in the last 20 years.


How is this broken? As far as I can see, all it means is that there is LESS time of people wasting their turns by figuring out EVERY SINGLE possible iteration of a move. Its refreshing because I dont have to wait 15 minutes for a player to figure out their move. Especially when Warhound Squadrons are here.

I'm a mix of annoyed and thankful at the "no pre-measuring" rule. The vast majority of the game's I've played, people don't bother to measure obvious ranges, trust each other's guess, and only measure when they're not sure. However, on occasion I'll run into someone who measures like they're an engineer working on a schematic. Checks every firing angle, measures, checks LOS from there, on and on. Played a KillTeam game like this that dragged on for 2 hrs, when all of my other killteam games were maybe 1 hr max - except for my first when neither of us knew the rules.

anyway.. ACTUAL QUESTION:

When firing weapons from the rear/flank, (eg: Avenger Gattling Cannon) does it count as +2/+1 str vs voids, or only for purposes of the armor roll? In the rulebook, it is mentioned that they are +2/+1 str during the armor roll - so I assume that gatling cannons cannot get through void shields regardless of firing angle. However, I'm not sure about it.

edit: nevermind. answering my own question. I re-read the rules. The +2/+1 is not to the weapons strength. It's simply a modifier to the armor roll. So, no gatlings can't make it through voids.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/09/28 23:31:42


Post by: Mr_Rose


First, thank you everyone for keeping to the intent of the thread.

Second, I came across a hypothetical combo (existing rules but nothing uses them together that I know of) that brought up a real issue I’d like to resolve:
What if a weapon has the Fustion and Rending traits?
Originally, I thought that, duh, RAW, at short range, the odds of getting the bonus damage from Rending actually drop (from 1/6 to 1/10) and that’s weird but liveable.

BUT, reading again, Rending just says Armour Roll and doesn’t say anything about modifiers. The Armour Roll is all of step 5b and includes modifiers for arc and damage. So are we looking at RAI they meant natural, unmodified sixes get the bonus damage?

Really, the question boils down to “how does Rending actually work?” Because as worded, a weapon with str. 6+ can’t trigger it at all…


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/09/29 03:43:28


Post by: Eumerin


 Mr_Rose wrote:

Really, the question boils down to “how does Rending actually work?” Because as worded, a weapon with str. 6+ can’t trigger it at all…


I'm pretty sure what the rule means is that if you roll a natural '6' on the die while making an Armor Roll, then the Rending trait kicks in and you roll an extra d3. It's not "I'm attacking with a Str 5 weapon, and I just rolled a '1', and 5+1=6, so Rending kicks in."

And if some unusual weapon combined both Fusion and Rending, then the rule could still apply (unless it's errataed, of course). Although in that case, rolling a 10 on the roll would be better than anything you could get with Rending...


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/09/29 17:53:18


Post by: pronz72


Hello,
It happears that there is no melee proper in AT.

I mean, you can bring your titan in base to base contact with an enemy with the idea of having close combat in the combat phase, but if, he has not yet been activated, he can just walk out of close proximity.

These seems wierd to my friends that are used to 40k, where once in CC you fight or die.

What do you guys think?


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/09/29 18:01:30


Post by: Mr_Rose


Even 40k lets you break out of combat (almost) consequence free these days.
I’d say, it is what it is and not a typo, so it’d be rude not to play it as is at least a few times before “fixing” it.

Also, if you can, always charge Titans in the side. If they move forward or turn away, you will end up in their rear arc, and if they reverse they may not even get far enough away without pushing. Especially Warlords.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/09/29 18:20:15


Post by: SirWeeble


pronz72 wrote:
Hello,
It happears that there is no melee proper in AT.

I mean, you can bring your titan in base to base contact with an enemy with the idea of having close combat in the combat phase, but if, he has not yet been activated, he can just walk out of close proximity.


Yes, that's how it works. "melee" weapons are effectively just guns with very short ranges and can be used in charges. I think it's a good way to run it. Titans aren't a swirling brawl of chaos when they're using close combat weapons - which is the rationale they use to stop shooting into melee in 40k. They're single gigantic slow moving targets. Note though that if you are engaged in hand-to-hand, depending on the angle there could be a +1 or +2 to hit for titans firing into your 'melee' situation- so you can use that to your advantage and try to get that +2 to opponent's titans. Additionally, with the stray shots rule, shooting into melee could damage a friendly unit.

Warlords will have a harder time at walking out of close combat. If the opponent titan moves into base-to-base in the front arch, a warlord will not be able to move forward. It will need to move sideways or backwards - halving their move speed. If you do have an opponent who walks out of close combat, you can use the charge order next turn if you've got a straight line to them - so its not always going to be advantageous to move out of melee range. This will occur before they have a chance to move.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/09/29 19:59:22


Post by: pronz72


 Mr_Rose wrote:
Even 40k lets you break out of combat (almost) consequence free these days.
I’d say, it is what it is and not a typo, so it’d be rude not to play it as is at least a few times before “fixing” it.

Also, if you can, always charge Titans in the side. If they move forward or turn away, you will end up in their rear arc, and if they reverse they may not even get far enough away without pushing. Especially Warlords.


I don't feel that is wrong. So, if it is not broken, don't fix it!
I'll better explain...
Yesterday evening I was the referee at our first game at the club. It happened just that, a warlord disengaged from close combat by backing away. One of the guys felt "broken" that giant robots don't have a ZOC . Yep, we are mostly an historycal wargaming club and that point of view could be expected

The opponent couldn't use its big power fist but shoot him point blank anyway. In the next move outflanked the enemy and close attacked from the side. So, back stepping was not so beneficial, after all!

I only wanted to be sure I was interpreting correctly


Automatically Appended Next Post:
SirWeeble wrote:
pronz72 wrote:
Hello,
It happears that there is no melee proper in AT.

I mean, you can bring your titan in base to base contact with an enemy with the idea of having close combat in the combat phase, but if, he has not yet been activated, he can just walk out of close proximity.


Yes, that's how it works. "melee" weapons are effectively just guns with very short ranges and can be used in charges. I think it's a good way to run it. Titans aren't a swirling brawl of chaos when they're using close combat weapons - which is the rationale they use to stop shooting into melee in 40k. They're single gigantic slow moving targets. Note though that if you are engaged in hand-to-hand, depending on the angle there could be a +1 or +2 to hit for titans firing into your 'melee' situation- so you can use that to your advantage and try to get that +2 to opponent's titans. Additionally, with the stray shots rule, shooting into melee could damage a friendly unit.

Warlords will have a harder time at walking out of close combat. If the opponent titan moves into base-to-base in the front arch, a warlord will not be able to move forward. It will need to move sideways or backwards - halving their move speed. If you do have an opponent who walks out of close combat, you can use the charge order next turn if you've got a straight line to them - so its not always going to be advantageous to move out of melee range. This will occur before they have a chance to move.


Not sure to understand the +1/+2 to hit, which bonus it is?


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/09/29 20:28:06


Post by: SirWeeble


by the +1/+2 i meant to the difficulty to hit the target.

Basically - titans can block los and provide cover. So in CC, if positioned correctly, you can make it harder for opponents to hit you. Add 'stray shots' rule, and it can be pretty risky to shoot into CC.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/09/29 21:17:19


Post by: pronz72


SirWeeble wrote:
by the +1/+2 i meant to the difficulty to hit the target.

Basically - titans can block los and provide cover. So in CC, if positioned correctly, you can make it harder for opponents to hit you. Add 'stray shots' rule, and it can be pretty risky to shoot into CC.


Ah! You mean the -1/-2 for partially obscured target!
Yes! I noticed that


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/09/29 22:47:36


Post by: Sherrypie


Regarding melee and sidestepping out of such, it is a good strategic consideration to bring a couple of cheap Warhounds or Knight lances on the field to give you more activations. If you can bait the relevant activations out, you can then more easily charge the proper targets you want to when they can't flee anymore.

You know, tactics and maneuver


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/09/30 05:02:25


Post by: tneva82


 Sherrypie wrote:
Regarding melee and sidestepping out of such, it is a good strategic consideration to bring a couple of cheap Warhounds or Knight lances on the field to give you more activations. If you can bait the relevant activations out, you can then more easily charge the proper targets you want to when they can't flee anymore.

You know, tactics and maneuver


Similar issue btw with many alternative activation games. Something pretty much requires you to have more activation. Titan h2h weapons in AT, boresight weapons in call to arms(for those who don't know those were basically laser beams so they fired straight ahead. So if you moved and targeted enemy ship with that if the enemy moved then it was quaranteed to go out of firearc. Ergo if you didn't outactivate your enemy your boresight weapons were super unlikely to shoot at anything and even if you did it was target ENEMY wanted you to shoot at)


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/09/30 11:50:31


Post by: Sherrypie


tneva82 wrote:
 Sherrypie wrote:
Regarding melee and sidestepping out of such, it is a good strategic consideration to bring a couple of cheap Warhounds or Knight lances on the field to give you more activations. If you can bait the relevant activations out, you can then more easily charge the proper targets you want to when they can't flee anymore.

You know, tactics and maneuver


Similar issue btw with many alternative activation games. Something pretty much requires you to have more activation. Titan h2h weapons in AT, boresight weapons in call to arms(for those who don't know those were basically laser beams so they fired straight ahead. So if you moved and targeted enemy ship with that if the enemy moved then it was quaranteed to go out of firearc. Ergo if you didn't outactivate your enemy your boresight weapons were super unlikely to shoot at anything and even if you did it was target ENEMY wanted you to shoot at)


That is very true. It is also very hard to design a game in such a manner that it wouldn't be the case, especially if you wish to retain an alternating phase structure instead of doing everything a model does at once.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/09/30 12:12:54


Post by: tneva82


Yep. Something to keep in mind in list building though. If you take fists take cheap stuff for activations. Or in game target soft targets quickly to turn the activation count to your favour


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/09/30 16:32:30


Post by: SirWeeble


Rule questions:

1) I had a situation come up. A reaver hit a warlord with a fist - which has the concussive trait. The result for the concussive roll was 1 (turn 45 degrees). Since the reaver was in base-to-base with the warlord in the front arc, there was not room to turn 45 degrees. There's room to turn maybe 20.

Does this count as an involuntary collision?

2) Machine Spirit contradictions - on page 44 under the machine spirit rules, (3rd paragraph, last sentence) It says that if the titan is not currently performing an action - for example pushing the reactor to power shields, then it does nothing and you still get your shield boost. However, on the same page under "unusual circumstances : moving during the enemy's activation" - it indicates that you can be forced to move as a result of powering shields.

There doesn't really seem to be answers to either of these unless I'm failing to understand something. If so, what are opinions on how to run these situations?


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/09/30 18:32:41


Post by: Sherrypie


SirWeeble wrote:
Rule questions:

1) I had a situation come up. A reaver hit a warlord with a fist - which has the concussive trait. The result for the concussive roll was 1 (turn 45 degrees). Since the reaver was in base-to-base with the warlord in the front arc, there was not room to turn 45 degrees. There's room to turn maybe 20.

Does this count as an involuntary collision?

2) Machine Spirit contradictions - on page 44 under the machine spirit rules, (3rd paragraph, last sentence) It says that if the titan is not currently performing an action - for example pushing the reactor to power shields, then it does nothing and you still get your shield boost. However, on the same page under "unusual circumstances : moving during the enemy's activation" - it indicates that you can be forced to move as a result of powering shields.

There doesn't really seem to be answers to either of these unless I'm failing to understand something. If so, what are opinions on how to run these situations?


I can't see any reason why you'd cause a collision while hitting the enemy away from you, so on my table we'd probably play that by wheeling the knocked titan slightly backwards, like instead on pivoting from the middle just wheel the indicated side of the base backwards or something.

Regarding machine spirit, what it says is that normally you end your action (moving, an attack or whatevs) and perform the machine spirit result immediately. If you're not active, then there is nothing to stop or otherwise worry about, you just do what the table says. No contradictions there. Yes, you can be forced to move by pushing your shields.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/09/30 19:14:33


Post by: SirWeeble


 Sherrypie wrote:

I can't see any reason why you'd cause a collision while hitting the enemy away from you, so on my table we'd probably play that by wheeling the knocked titan slightly backwards, like instead on pivoting from the middle just wheel the indicated side of the base backwards or something.

Regarding machine spirit, what it says is that normally you end your action (moving, an attack or whatevs) and perform the machine spirit result immediately. If you're not active, then there is nothing to stop or otherwise worry about, you just do what the table says. No contradictions there. Yes, you can be forced to move by pushing your shields.


Ah ok - i did misunderstand the machine spirit rule then. I thought it was saying that nothing happens with the machine-spirit rather than nothing happens with the action.

That's probably a good policy with the concussion turning.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/09/30 19:21:29


Post by: tneva82


Titan might have tried to hit straight front but misses and hits side causing enemy titan to stagger and actually step forward thus hitting you. I would say it's collision.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/01 08:54:12


Post by: aldo1234


SirWeeble wrote:
Rule questions:

1) I had a situation come up. A reaver hit a warlord with a fist - which has the concussive trait. The result for the concussive roll was 1 (turn 45 degrees). Since the reaver was in base-to-base with the warlord in the front arc, there was not room to turn 45 degrees. There's room to turn maybe 20.

Does this count as an involuntary collision?



we had an incident similar where two reavers with fists charged at each other, and became base to base contact. we played it as involuntary collisions when attempting to turn them due to the concussive rule, which meant that the reavers actually ended up doing more damage to each other with the collisions than the actual fists.

We did have a question come up about concussive weapons hitting the rear of a titan which would normally cause it to potentially move directly backwards, however we house ruled it as moving the titan directly away from the source for a roll of a 3-4 which seemed slightly more fluffy


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/01 22:05:24


Post by: SirWeeble


I think just not doing the collision is a better solution personally. I asked just to see what others were doing, and i can see it going either way. A stumbling titan is certainly realistic, but the whole situation can be mitigated by being 1cm away from base-to-base which makes me feel as if it was not an intentional part of the rules.

Also rules state that involuntary moving causes collisions - so whether 'turning' is considered 'moving' becomes the core question i suppose. I'm leaning towards 'no' since they need to be performed separately and have separate rules.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/02 02:44:58


Post by: tneva82


If turning is not movement you could use repair order, turn and shoot. That would be big

edit: No that's actually incorrect. Though I still consider turning movement. Good one for FAQ anyway.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/04 16:43:33


Post by: tneva82


2 questions from game. Warlord has knights in his face. Can he shoot at titan 1 and stomp at knights?

Also knights in combat with warlord. One has clear route toward another. Can he charge and hit both if coherency :s maintained? And how extra attack if other can move ahead like 0.5"


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/04 16:55:01


Post by: Sherrypie


tneva82 wrote:
2 questions from game. Warlord has knights in his face. Can he shoot at titan 1 and stomp at knights?

Also knights in combat with warlord. One has clear route toward another. Can he charge and hit both if coherency :s maintained? And how extra attack if other can move ahead like 0.5"


1) Page 36 says Smash attacks are made in addition to any other attacks the titan makes. I would personally allow Smash attacks against the knights, as the primary attack goes like normal and the machine's general movements then whack the knights about.

2) Melee weapons work just like any other weapons: one weapon targets one opponent, so a single knight won't hit more than one titan. The unit though, sure, just split the dice. Regarding extra dice, it's per unit and not per model with knights and as the +1 / 3" rule goes, James Hewitt said that he'd use the least movement in the unit to decide how many are acquired. So no extra attacks there unless the entire blob goes at least 3".


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/04 17:05:13


Post by: tneva82


For 2 though(and 1) unit targets 1 and can't normally split without split fire. Does melee ignore that?


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/04 17:49:05


Post by: Sherrypie


tneva82 wrote:
For 2 though(and 1) unit targets 1 and can't normally split without split fire. Does melee ignore that?


Hm, true.

After a bit of reading I can't find anything that would indicate any exceptions. Maybe you just have to take what you get and hit that Split Fire button more often if you wish to both shoot far away and kick the Knights away, that's also an interesting tactical choice to be made. Likewise the Knights have to target only one unit unless they use Split Fire, which of course means they won't be Charging anywhere.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/04 17:58:46


Post by: tneva82


Yeah. In game i had shields down and reactor hot so emergency repair felt more pressing. Though maybe should have risked him at least not daring to use volcano cannons vs my warlord as that would torch his knights also. Reaver could pepper flank. Though ws5 but one solid hit would halve knights hacking me.

Those knights are plain nasty!


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/04 18:05:41


Post by: Sherrypie


I think I quite like the Gatling blaster on a Warlord, as it is powerful enough to both hurt titans and shoot some pesky knights away if they diddle in front of it without pushing your reactor all day. That or the double fisted bubble of death. Eat 6 dice of instant death, gnats


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/04 18:15:01


Post by: SirWeeble


tneva82 wrote:
2 questions from game. Warlord has knights in his face. Can he shoot at titan 1 and stomp at knights?


Yes, if you're using the split fire command.

tneva82 wrote:
Also knights in combat with warlord. One has clear route toward another. Can he charge and hit both if coherency :s maintained? And how extra attack if other can move ahead like 0.5"


You can charge both, but you can't make melee attacks at both(if i remember right - need to check the book). In order to target separate units, you need to use the split fire command. If you're using the charge command already, then you can't use the split fire command. I don't think the charge command requires an actual target - it just requires you move straight forward. (can anyone confirm this?)

Additionally - even during the combat phase, you couldn't attack 2 separate targets with the knight close combat weapons. You could use split fire and attack one with the melee weapon and another with a long range weapon - but you can't split up the pools. Knights add all of their dice for a weapon together and treat it like 1 weapon. eg: you have 3 knights with Thermal Cannons. You treat it like 1 thermal cannon with 3 shots.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/04 18:47:32


Post by: tneva82


Another question. Weapon hits 3 times and gets damage with all. If first or second pushes damage where is modifier does remaining dices get already or only next weapon?


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/04 20:16:43


Post by: Sherrypie


tneva82 wrote:
Another question. Weapon hits 3 times and gets damage with all. If first or second pushes damage where is modifier does remaining dices get already or only next weapon?


Page 34: "Note that if the marker moves into a hole with a different modifier as a result of the attack, the new modifier is not used until the next attack is resolved."


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/04 20:44:00


Post by: Eumerin


SirWeeble wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Also knights in combat with warlord. One has clear route toward another. Can he charge and hit both if coherency :s maintained? And how extra attack if other can move ahead like 0.5"


You can charge both, but you can't make melee attacks at both(if i remember right - need to check the book). In order to target separate units, you need to use the split fire command. If you're using the charge command already, then you can't use the split fire command. I don't think the charge command requires an actual target - it just requires you move straight forward. (can anyone confirm this?)


A banner of knights is considered to be a single multi-model unit.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/04 20:53:17


Post by: SirWeeble


zerosignal wrote:
Anyone else think that 'merge void shields' is missing a paragraph?

The fluff description seems to suggest it risks both titan's void shields, but there is nothing in the rule which supports that.

Perhaps a burnout on one titan should drop the shields on both?


No, it's just that it's a bit of a tradeoff. If that titan pair get targeted with a ton of firepower by one shield breaker titan, they both end up with shields dropped.

eg: say you have a warlord that is nothing but bolters and apoc missiles. It gets like 20 shots with low powered weapons that could break both warhound's shields. If instead it only attacked one titan, it would break 1 titan's shields, but its weapons wouldn't be strong enough to damage the hull. Now, next activation, you've got 2 shieldless warhounds instead of 1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eumerin wrote:
SirWeeble wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Also knights in combat with warlord. One has clear route toward another. Can he charge and hit both if coherency :s maintained? And how extra attack if other can move ahead like 0.5"

You can charge both, but you can't make melee attacks at both(if i remember right - need to check the book). In order to target separate units, you need to use the split fire command. If you're using the charge command already, then you can't use the split fire command. I don't think the charge command requires an actual target - it just requires you move straight forward. (can anyone confirm this?)

A banner of knights is considered to be a single multi-model unit.

I don't get why that's relevant. I don't mean that in a snarky way. If there's more to it, then do tell. AFIK, you can still only issue it one order and all models fire/swing their weapon at once. I don't have a book where I am.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/04 21:30:29


Post by: Sherrypie


SirWeeble wrote:


Eumerin wrote:
SirWeeble wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Also knights in combat with warlord. One has clear route toward another. Can he charge and hit both if coherency :s maintained? And how extra attack if other can move ahead like 0.5"

You can charge both, but you can't make melee attacks at both(if i remember right - need to check the book). In order to target separate units, you need to use the split fire command. If you're using the charge command already, then you can't use the split fire command. I don't think the charge command requires an actual target - it just requires you move straight forward. (can anyone confirm this?)

A banner of knights is considered to be a single multi-model unit.

I don't get why that's relevant. I don't mean that in a snarky way. If there's more to it, then do tell. AFIK, you can still only issue it one order and all models fire/swing their weapon at once. I don't have a book where I am.


Page 46: "All the weapons in a banner must be fired at the same target unless the banner has Split Fire orders, at which point each weapon can be directed at a different target." and "Instead of attacking with each knight individually, make an attack with each different weapon in turn [and multiply by each knight equipped blah blah]"

So yeah, the blob attacks one target only unless on Split Fire. Regarding Charge order, there's no need to have a target. You just get an extra opportunity for pain if you get in grips with someone


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/04 23:25:43


Post by: Eumerin


SirWeeble wrote:


Eumerin wrote:
SirWeeble wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Also knights in combat with warlord. One has clear route toward another. Can he charge and hit both if coherency :s maintained? And how extra attack if other can move ahead like 0.5"

You can charge both, but you can't make melee attacks at both(if i remember right - need to check the book). In order to target separate units, you need to use the split fire command. If you're using the charge command already, then you can't use the split fire command. I don't think the charge command requires an actual target - it just requires you move straight forward. (can anyone confirm this?)

A banner of knights is considered to be a single multi-model unit.

I don't get why that's relevant. I don't mean that in a snarky way. If there's more to it, then do tell. AFIK, you can still only issue it one order and all models fire/swing their weapon at once. I don't have a book where I am.


Because the Warlord *is* attacking both knights. Technically it's treated as an attack against a single model. But when one knight is destroyed, excess damage from additional hits inflicted gets carried over as the countdown starts toward the next destroyed knight. And a good hit from a single Smash attack could conceivably destroy both knights at once (it's not that hard for a Warlord to crit against knights with a smash attack).


On a related note, has there been any word on what happens when part of a banner is within range of a weapon, and part of a banner is not? Is all of the damage counted? Or can you apply any kills only on models within range of the weapon, and ignore the rest of the damage? RAW seems to suggest that damage gets carried over regardless of the distance to the other knights. But I'm checking to make sure that I haven't missed anything.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/05 06:54:13


Post by: Sherrypie


Eumerin wrote:
SirWeeble wrote:


Eumerin wrote:
SirWeeble wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Also knights in combat with warlord. One has clear route toward another. Can he charge and hit both if coherency :s maintained? And how extra attack if other can move ahead like 0.5"

You can charge both, but you can't make melee attacks at both(if i remember right - need to check the book). In order to target separate units, you need to use the split fire command. If you're using the charge command already, then you can't use the split fire command. I don't think the charge command requires an actual target - it just requires you move straight forward. (can anyone confirm this?)

A banner of knights is considered to be a single multi-model unit.

I don't get why that's relevant. I don't mean that in a snarky way. If there's more to it, then do tell. AFIK, you can still only issue it one order and all models fire/swing their weapon at once. I don't have a book where I am.


Because the Warlord *is* attacking both knights. Technically it's treated as an attack against a single model. But when one knight is destroyed, excess damage from additional hits inflicted gets carried over as the countdown starts toward the next destroyed knight. And a good hit from a single Smash attack could conceivably destroy both knights at once (it's not that hard for a Warlord to crit against knights with a smash attack).


On a related note, has there been any word on what happens when part of a banner is within range of a weapon, and part of a banner is not? Is all of the damage counted? Or can you apply any kills only on models within range of the weapon, and ignore the rest of the damage? RAW seems to suggest that damage gets carried over regardless of the distance to the other knights. But I'm checking to make sure that I haven't missed anything.


Eumerin, the question wasn't can the Warlord hit more than one knight, it was about the same Banner hitting multiple Warlords

Regarding range, the Knights are indeed treated as a unit. You have range to some, you blast enough dakka their way, the entire Banner gets wiped. Done.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/05 16:10:56


Post by: SirWeeble


Had a few questions come up in my first game:

When rolling to attack, do you roll all of your dice for all weapons at once (and do one shield save vs all attacks) or do one attack at a time and make separate shield saves?

And related: if you do make separate attacks, do you apply the new lower shield save if a shield was dropped from the previous attack from the same titan?

In regards to machine spirit - it says the 'current action is canceled'. If you were attacking - does it cancel all attacks, or just that one weapon?

The way I had interpreted it was that you do each weapon individually with separate saves, with a new shield value and that a machine-spirit will only cancel that one attack. My opponent had been rolling all attacks for all weapons at one time and doing one save.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/05 16:48:54


Post by: Eumerin


 Sherrypie wrote:

Eumerin, the question wasn't can the Warlord hit more than one knight, it was about the same Banner hitting multiple Warlords


Huh.

I suppose it could be read that way. The good news is that it appears I was the only person confused over whether "another" referred to another knight, or another warlord.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
SirWeeble wrote:
Had a few questions come up in my first game:

When rolling to attack, do you roll all of your dice for all weapons at once (and do one shield save vs all attacks) or do one attack at a time and make separate shield saves?


The answer to this question is in the handy little chart at the bottom left of page 33 of the rulebook. There's a helpful Combat Sequence summary that lays out the order of actions each time you activate a unit. Unfortunately, when the Combat Phase chapter was written, the writers included every step in that sequence except for the 6th step, which is "Repeat steps 2-5 for each remaining weapon". So if you miss the chart, it can be a bit confusing trying to figure out how the weapons shooting is supposed to work.

Shooting is not simultaneous, even for weapons being fired by the same unit. This is intentional, as it allows you to fire the rapid fire, low strength weapons that will strip shields first, and then take advantage of the lack of shields on your target to hit it with your low rate of fire, high strength weapons like a Volcano Cannon.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/06 03:07:15


Post by: SirWeeble


Ah yes, i see the chart. I overlooked it.

I was thrown by the long-form rule's use of ambiguous plurals.

step 2 "Declare which of the unit's *weapons* will attack"

better pharasing: "declare which weapon the activated unit will attack with."


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/06 07:16:03


Post by: Eumerin


SirWeeble wrote:
Ah yes, i see the chart. I overlooked it.

I was thrown by the long-form rule's use of ambiguous plurals.

step 2 "Declare which of the unit's *weapons* will attack"

better pharasing: "declare which weapon the activated unit will attack with."


It's possible that you have to declare all of the weapons being used beforehand. This can be important as there are certain weapons (such as anything with the Drain trait) that you might not want to fire on a turn depending on the status of your target. You might decide not to fire your Volcano Cannon because you don't think you'll completely strip your enemy's shields (and you don't want to push your reactor), and then get surprised by a very nice set of to hit and shield save rolls that leave your opponent wide open. Whether you have to declare the Volcano Cannon at the start of the unit's activation, or can wait to declare it until after other weapons have fired can be important.

But the bit you quoted and Step 6 appear to contradict each other. Looks like that needs to be FAQed.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/07 00:03:44


Post by: SirWeeble


Eumerin wrote:

It's possible that you have to declare all of the weapons being used beforehand. This can be important as there are certain weapons (such as anything with the Drain trait) that you might not want to fire on a turn depending on the status of your target. You might decide not to fire your Volcano Cannon because you don't think you'll completely strip your enemy's shields (and you don't want to push your reactor), and then get surprised by a very nice set of to hit and shield save rolls that leave your opponent wide open. Whether you have to declare the Volcano Cannon at the start of the unit's activation, or can wait to declare it until after other weapons have fired can be important.

But the bit you quoted and Step 6 appear to contradict each other. Looks like that needs to be FAQed.

The part i quoted is just ambiguous. eg: "choose which of your fingers to point at me" could mean "choose a finger to point at me" or "choose any number of fingers to point at me". But the ambiguity is resolved by the chart that simply says "1) choose a weapon 2) roll to hit 3) shields.. 6) repeat"


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/07 11:47:55


Post by: Zenithfleet


Couple of questions about Knights after our first game (which involved a Reaver and a 3-strong Knight Banner on each side).

Is it correct to say that the position of each Knight model matters when it fires at an enemy (for LOS, range, etc.)... but doesn't matter when it takes fire?

Example: A 3-strong unit of Knights is lurking near blocking terrain (e.g. a big building). From the point of view of an enemy Titan, one Knight model is in the open, one is partly behind the corner of the building, and one is entirely hidden behind the terrain.

The controlling player activates the Knight unit and fires at the enemy Titan. For this purpose, each Knight (or rather each weapon) is treated as a separate model when working out who can fire, yes?

In this case, assume there are three battlecannon weapons in the unit--one on each Knight. One of the battlecannons is mounted on the Knight completely hidden behind the building. The second is on the Knight half-hidden by the building corner. The third is on the Knight in the open.

As far as I can tell, the battlecannon with no LOS to the Titan can't fire; the one partly hidden sees the Titan as 25%+ obscured (after hunkering down to eyeball it), so it has a to-hit modifier; and the one in the open can see the Titan clearly, so it has no modifier to hit. Is that right?

OK. Now the opposing player activates the entirely unbothered Titan and fires back at the annoying gnats. Now, when Knights are fired at, they're treated as a single blob. So he chooses the model in the open as the 'yardstick' for measuring range, line of sight, etc. Therefore he doesn't suffer any modifiers to hit for obscured LOS, even though only one of the Knights is fully visible. Yes?

For the sake of argument, assume he does enough damage to kill all three Knights at once. Or he does enough damage to remove one Knight, but it happens to be a Targeted Attack, so he gets to choose which Knight he removes; he takes out the one completely hidden behind the building. In either case, the fact that two of the Knights were wholly or partly concealed doesn't matter a bit.

Is that how it's meant to go? Seems unfair if so. I feel like I'm missing something obvious...


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/07 17:21:11


Post by: Patriarch


It's not explicitly spelt out, but the intent may be that you aren't supposed to be able to deliberately target a location you can't see.

The rules make you reroll the location dice if you randomly hit a location you can't see, but the "targeted attacks" bit is written in a different section.

The next supposition is that targeted knights work like targeted locations, so if you can't see a knight, you can't choose for that one to be targeted by your attack.

I'd be happy to houserule that's what the rules mean, but that's not what they actually say explicitly.

As it stands, the rules work the way you described. The only way to keep your knights safe is to keep all members of the banner out of sight; but if you want to use all weapons, you must keep all exposed.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/07 18:17:15


Post by: Eumerin


Zenithfleet wrote:
Is it correct to say that the position of each Knight model matters when it fires at an enemy (for LOS, range, etc.)...


Line of fire is tracked *from each weapon*, regardless of whether that weapon is mounted on a knight or a titan. This even applies to Warlord Carapace weapons, which are mounted as matched pairs, and which can be partially obstructed or blocked due to terrain, with the subsequent affect on the attack dice being contributed by that half of the weapon pair.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/08 02:12:36


Post by: SirWeeble


I agree with the other 2 answers here with a bit of an addendum. If a single weapon did enough damage to kill 3 knights, you would remove 3 knights. However, if a single weapon killed one knight, since the combat phase requires you to run through each weapon separately, you would attack the first knight with no accuracy modifier. Now that it's dead, your next LOS check would apply to what remains of the lance.

So - if for example: 2 knights are out of LOS. 1 knight is 50% covered. One knight is exposed.

First weapon shoots. No modifiers. kills 1 knight.

Second weapon shoots. +2 modifier to hit. His anyway. Kills a knight.

3rd weapon shoots. No LOS. Can't hit, the attack is over.

I don't think that there's any need for a house rule, personally. I think the knight's fragility is built into their cost and the rules for their damage were not complicated for the sake speeding the game up. It's fairly easy to abstract as far as fiction/head cannon goes. These machines aren't shooting rifles or machineguns. They're shooting massive weapons that melt concrete or have explosions the power of small nukes. Even the weapons that don't have 'blast' probably do cause explosions.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/08 08:16:30


Post by: Zenithfleet


Patriarch wrote:
It's not explicitly spelt out, but the intent may be that you aren't supposed to be able to deliberately target a location you can't see.

The rules make you reroll the location dice if you randomly hit a location you can't see, but the "targeted attacks" bit is written in a different section.

The next supposition is that targeted knights work like targeted locations, so if you can't see a knight, you can't choose for that one to be targeted by your attack.


Aha! That's one of the things I was missing. Thanks. That makes much more sense.

You could still use a Targeted Attack to hit a Knight in partial cover without suffering any to-hit modifier, though, right? (Besides the one for the Targeted Attack, that is.)

SirWeeble wrote:
I agree with the other 2 answers here with a bit of an addendum. If a single weapon did enough damage to kill 3 knights, you would remove 3 knights. However, if a single weapon killed one knight, since the combat phase requires you to run through each weapon separately, you would attack the first knight with no accuracy modifier. Now that it's dead, your next LOS check would apply to what remains of the lance.

So - if for example: 2 knights are out of LOS. 1 knight is 50% covered. One knight is exposed.

First weapon shoots. No modifiers. kills 1 knight.

Second weapon shoots. +2 modifier to hit. His anyway. Kills a knight.

3rd weapon shoots. No LOS. Can't hit, the attack is over.


Another great point. (Just thought of it myself this afternoon actually, and was about to post it. )

Normally the player controlling the Knights gets to choose which one to remove, so would probably pick the one out in the open when the first weapon kills it. When the next weapon fires, there's no Knight out in the open anymore, so one of the models in cover would become the yardstick. And so on.

SirWeeble wrote:

I don't think that there's any need for a house rule, personally. I think the knight's fragility is built into their cost and the rules for their damage were not complicated for the sake speeding the game up. It's fairly easy to abstract as far as fiction/head cannon goes. These machines aren't shooting rifles or machineguns. They're shooting massive weapons that melt concrete or have explosions the power of small nukes. Even the weapons that don't have 'blast' probably do cause explosions.


Yep, I agree now, given the two clarifications above re Targeted Attacks and firing one weapon at a time.

Considering how many structure points of damage you'd have to do to kill off a bunch of Knights in a single weapon volley, anything that powerful probably blew away the obstructing terrain in the process.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/08 14:37:59


Post by: Fajita Fan


Has anyone played with the destructible terrain rules?


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/08 16:58:43


Post by: Sherrypie


Fajita Fan wrote:
Has anyone played with the destructible terrain rules?


Yup. And everyone should, too.

It adds a nice element of both tactics and atmosphere to the game. You can waste time shooting your enemy out of cover instead of taking pot shots a them or combined with the stray shots rule accidentally blow something else entirely, creating new problems and opportunities on the field. On the atmospheric side, this is THE game for crushing your enemies (seeing them driven before you and hearing the lamentations of their women) or stopping your enemies from razing your cities. It's great fodder for all sorts of narrative scenarios.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/08 17:51:59


Post by: Fajita Fan


It certainly seems like it’d fun but knowing how picky I am I’d end up making a destroyed building for each building


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/08 18:10:48


Post by: Sherrypie


Fajita Fan wrote:
It certainly seems like it’d fun but knowing how picky I am I’d end up making a destroyed building for each building


... And that's bad how ?

But really, having some scatter rubble does wonders and goes pretty far.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/18 17:27:46


Post by: tneva82


2 questions from game. Warlord has one carapace barrage weapon so it sees with -1 leve# and other -2. Do you roll 10 missiles at -1, -2 or 5 of each?

Also attack against pair of warhounds b2b. He has 1 and 2 shields. Fail 3. Can he put all to 1 shield leaving other with 2 and regardless of which i hit next it's still vs 2 shields?


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/18 20:41:03


Post by: Fajita Fan


tneva82 wrote:
2 questions from game. Warlord has one carapace barrage weapon so it sees with -1 leve# and other -2. Do you roll 10 missiles at -1, -2 or 5 of each?

Also attack against pair of warhounds b2b. He has 1 and 2 shields. Fail 3. Can he put all to 1 shield leaving other with 2 and regardless of which i hit next it's still vs 2 shields?

The way I read the rules on shields, yes you can take all the hits from one gun and blow out one model’s shields leaving the other untouched. By merging their bubbles you can “pick which of the void shields levels is reduced.” This is why shots are done one at a time per gun.

Also if one has 3 shields while the other has 2 and you take 3 hits you can split the shots so they both go down to one last shield each. Then you won’t have to roll a 6 to reignite later.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/18 20:57:28


Post by: tneva82


That's how it looked but that seems awfully powerfull ability with zero drawback. FW shouldn't have put that part about both shield collapsing fluff text then as as it is that hints there being drawback to the very powerfull ability while in practice there's only gain here. Shudder at the idea of trio of warhounds. Those will be bugger to take down without concentrated shieldbane weapons.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/18 21:23:22


Post by: Nostromodamus


The drawback is that you have to keep those fast flanking Warhounds in base contact, which might not always be possible or preferable.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/19 03:18:46


Post by: Fajita Fan


tneva82 wrote:
That's how it looked but that seems awfully powerfull ability with zero drawback. FW shouldn't have put that part about both shield collapsing fluff text then as as it is that hints there being drawback to the very powerfull ability while in practice there's only gain here. Shudder at the idea of trio of warhounds. Those will be bugger to take down without concentrated shieldbane weapons.


I rather like the rule about shields blowing out and damage from that gun not transferring to the hull. However you are right about the fluff and how one shield overloading *should* damage the other one. Dunno. Maybe the only thing an exploding void can’t hurt is another void field, the energy bent around it or something.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/19 03:55:12


Post by: tneva82


Fajita Fan wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
That's how it looked but that seems awfully powerfull ability with zero drawback. FW shouldn't have put that part about both shield collapsing fluff text then as as it is that hints there being drawback to the very powerfull ability while in practice there's only gain here. Shudder at the idea of trio of warhounds. Those will be bugger to take down without concentrated shieldbane weapons.


I rather like the rule about shields blowing out and damage from that gun not transferring to the hull. However you are right about the fluff and how one shield overloading *should* damage the other one. Dunno. Maybe the only thing an exploding void can’t hurt is another void field, the energy bent around it or something.


No issue with not transfering to hull. But shields having possibilty to split shield failures evenly untill it's inconvenient and just put all to 1 shield seems awfully strong. Those warhounds soaked up more firepower than warlord! I shudder what trio will take.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/19 05:55:29


Post by: Eumerin


tneva82 wrote:
2 questions from game. Warlord has one carapace barrage weapon so it sees with -1 leve# and other -2. Do you roll 10 missiles at -1, -2 or 5 of each?


I believe all of the Warlord Carapace weapons also have the 'Paired' trait. So it would be 5 dice for each modifier See the description of the Paired Weapon trait on page 39.



As for paired Warhounds in base to base, remember that putting the models so close to each other also makes them more vulnerable to blast weapons. For instance, if one of those two Volcano Cannons that all of the Warlords are bundled puts the center of the blast template over one Warhound, then another Warhound in base to base contact will almost certainly get hit as well. That means that one Warhound takes two hits on the Void Shield while the other one takes 1 point. So the two points get resolved first (assuming that the attacking player chooses to resolve them in that order). If they knock down the void shields on one Warhound, then the additional point of damage on the other Warhound isn't lost.

It's not great (iirc, all of the existing Blast weapons only roll 1 die; and the sole Firestorm weapon rolls 3), but it is something to keep in mind. Warhounds don't have that many shields to start with, so they're more vulnerable to that then Reavers and Warlords.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/19 06:45:42


Post by: tneva82


Eumerin wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
2 questions from game. Warlord has one carapace barrage weapon so it sees with -1 leve# and other -2. Do you roll 10 missiles at -1, -2 or 5 of each?


I believe all of the Warlord Carapace weapons also have the 'Paired' trait. So it would be 5 dice for each modifier See the description of the Paired Weapon trait on page 39.



As for paired Warhounds in base to base, remember that putting the models so close to each other also makes them more vulnerable to blast weapons. For instance, if one of those two Volcano Cannons that all of the Warlords are bundled puts the center of the blast template over one Warhound, then another Warhound in base to base contact will almost certainly get hit as well. That means that one Warhound takes two hits on the Void Shield while the other one takes 1 point. So the two points get resolved first (assuming that the attacking player chooses to resolve them in that order). If they knock down the void shields on one Warhound, then the additional point of damage on the other Warhound isn't lost.

It's not great (iirc, all of the existing Blast weapons only roll 1 die; and the sole Firestorm weapon rolls 3), but it is something to keep in mind. Warhounds don't have that many shields to start with, so they're more vulnerable to that then Reavers and Warlords.


Plasma plastguns from warhounds actually shoot 2 so yeah those are handy. 3 hits per hit with some hits from scatter certainly helps. Might bring in warhound with pair of those to bugger off any bunched up warhounds. Or just ignore warhounds with guns because even warlord will struggle to dent those. Send in knights instead or just take it in the chin.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/19 06:49:04


Post by: Sherrypie


I'm not buying that shield shenanigan. The rules say you reduce shield levels when you fail saves and Merging rules let you pick where you reduce it from, not to shunt it all on one engine and get extra durability by soaking fire with already dead shields. So if you have multiple Warhounds there, if you fail X saves you split X reductions amongst them, which may cause them all to fail.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/19 06:56:13


Post by: tneva82


 Sherrypie wrote:
I'm not buying that shield shenanigan. The rules say you reduce shield levels when you fail saves and Merging rules let you pick where you reduce it from, not to shunt it all on one engine and get extra durability by soaking fire with already dead shields. So if you have multiple Warhounds there, if you fail X saves you split X reductions amongst them, which may cause them all to fail.


That's what I thought but we couldn't come on conclusion based on rulebook so in these sort of cases I tend to go stop arquing and hand it out for opponent and ask elsewhere later. Thing is it says CAN split so one can easily arque you don't HAVE to split. That word basically made me during game go "okay let's play it that way".


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/19 07:33:27


Post by: Sherrypie


tneva82 wrote:
 Sherrypie wrote:
I'm not buying that shield shenanigan. The rules say you reduce shield levels when you fail saves and Merging rules let you pick where you reduce it from, not to shunt it all on one engine and get extra durability by soaking fire with already dead shields. So if you have multiple Warhounds there, if you fail X saves you split X reductions amongst them, which may cause them all to fail.


That's what I thought but we couldn't come on conclusion based on rulebook so in these sort of cases I tend to go stop arquing and hand it out for opponent and ask elsewhere later. Thing is it says CAN split so one can easily arque you don't HAVE to split. That word basically made me during game go "okay let's play it that way".


I think the RAI is very clear on this: the shields merge to one, it acts as one and if it blows, both go down. Thus when it takes damage, it then very well takes that damage without any shunty shenanigans. The rules text isn't too ambivalent either: you can put all reductions on one or more engines, but for each failed save you have to reduce one if you can.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/19 08:16:47


Post by: Aexcaliber


Question about Victory points:

How are Imperial Knights counting, if i have a Unit of 4 oder 5. A Imperial Knight Unit in Standard size has a value of "3". Or is this the value of one single Knight? How many Victory Points gives a Unit Imperial Knights when playing the first Mission from the Book?


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/19 08:31:46


Post by: Sherrypie


Aexcaliber wrote:
Question about Victory points:

How are Imperial Knights counting, if i have a Unit of 4 oder 5. A Imperial Knight Unit in Standard size has a value of "3". Or is this the value of one single Knight? How many Victory Points gives a Unit Imperial Knights when playing the first Mission from the Book?


The unit has a Scale of 3, just like Warhounds have 6, Reavers 8 and Warlords 10. The number of models in the unit does not matter.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/19 11:22:41


Post by: Fajita Fan


 Sherrypie wrote:
I'm not buying that shield shenanigan. The rules say you reduce shield levels when you fail saves and Merging rules let you pick where you reduce it from, not to shunt it all on one engine and get extra durability by soaking fire with already dead shields. So if you have multiple Warhounds there, if you fail X saves you split X reductions amongst them, which may cause them all to fail.


If two Warhounds merge shields and you take a handful of saves from a macro Gatling or Apoc launcher then you can dump the failed saves between either shield or split them amongst both. As written you can dump 5 failed saves on one engine with one shield remaining and blow it out without hurting the other shield. You have the *option* of splitting the 5 failed saves but you don’t have to split them. What you’re talking about would be a reason to *never* form squadrons.

Remember we’re talking about saves taken from one weapon at a time. You fire a Gatling cannon at one Warhound who can soak all the failed saves. Then you fire an Apoc launcher and the other Warhound can take all the saves potentially blowing out its shields. THEN you fire the volcano blast template and catch them both without shields. The shield bubble rule is meant to let the defender soak hits in a way to improve their survivability, it’s just a gameplay tool.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/19 11:37:47


Post by: tneva82


Fajita Fan wrote:
 Sherrypie wrote:
I'm not buying that shield shenanigan. The rules say you reduce shield levels when you fail saves and Merging rules let you pick where you reduce it from, not to shunt it all on one engine and get extra durability by soaking fire with already dead shields. So if you have multiple Warhounds there, if you fail X saves you split X reductions amongst them, which may cause them all to fail.


If two Warhounds merge shields and you take a handful of saves from a macro Gatling or Apoc launcher then you can dump the failed saves between either shield or split them amongst both. As written you can dump 5 failed saves on one engine with one shield remaining and blow it out without hurting the other shield. You have the *option* of splitting the 5 failed saves but you don’t have to split them. What you’re talking about would be a reason to *never* form squadrons.

Remember we’re talking about saves taken from one weapon at a time. You fire a Gatling cannon at one Warhound who can soak all the failed saves. Then you fire an Apoc launcher and the other Warhound can take all the saves potentially blowing out its shields. THEN you fire the volcano blast template and catch them both without shields. The shield bubble rule is meant to let the defender soak hits in a way to improve their survivability, it’s just a gameplay tool.


Never? Even with that the ability to keep shields up longer for both would be big help. It's bit much to claim it's reason to never form squadrons when you are getting big help in survivability(even if you have to spread it in this scenario) and firepower nevermind ability to benefits of activating at once.

In your above scenario those warhounds would still be laughting at the volcano cannon barring some seriously good luck.

With the have to share it's good survivability boost. If you can dumb all to 1 at will it turns pair of warhounds tougher than reaver and three will shrug off firepower that even warlord is seriously worried(unless it rolls god like like I did yesterday)


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/19 11:46:04


Post by: Sherrypie


Fajita Fan wrote:
 Sherrypie wrote:
I'm not buying that shield shenanigan. The rules say you reduce shield levels when you fail saves and Merging rules let you pick where you reduce it from, not to shunt it all on one engine and get extra durability by soaking fire with already dead shields. So if you have multiple Warhounds there, if you fail X saves you split X reductions amongst them, which may cause them all to fail.


If two Warhounds merge shields and you take a handful of saves from a macro Gatling or Apoc launcher then you can dump the failed saves between either shield or split them amongst both. As written you can dump 5 failed saves on one engine with one shield remaining and blow it out without hurting the other shield. You have the *option* of splitting the 5 failed saves but you don’t have to split them. What you’re talking about would be a reason to *never* form squadrons.

Remember we’re talking about saves taken from one weapon at a time. You fire a Gatling cannon at one Warhound who can soak all the failed saves. Then you fire an Apoc launcher and the other Warhound can take all the saves potentially blowing out its shields. THEN you fire the volcano blast template and catch them both without shields. The shield bubble rule is meant to let the defender soak hits in a way to improve their survivability, it’s just a gameplay tool.


No, I still don't think that's possible. The thing with merged shields is that since you only roll against one value, you can gave a Hound with one 4+ shield left and a fresh 3+ Hound with three left, use the 3+, fail two and take them on the fresh one, which still leaves you with shields and is thus better than losing shields on the already beaten one. That is a plus, your reading is a HUGE plus, which also goes against the spirit of the rules (as far as I think). Having the option to shunt would be both immensely effective and fluffwise weird, which goes against the spirit of a very fluffy game.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/19 11:59:37


Post by: Fajita Fan


I’m leaving for work and I’ll take my rulebook. We’ll look later and we can even roll out a Warlord shooting a Warhound to see how fragile they are.

But yes, squadroning is meant to be a bonus to help the survivabilty of fragile models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
“If a Titan's base is touching the base of another Titan in the same Squadron, they can merge their void shields. If either of the Titans is attacked, the controlling player can use the Void Shield level of either Titan. If any saves are failed, they can pick which of the Titans' Void Shield levels is reduced, and can even split it between them.”

I wish they addressed blowing out one shield vs the other because it doesn’t make sense to me why one shield going down wouldn’t affect the other. Given how the rules work for failing saves where you roll a save based on the current shield level and once the shield goes out any further hits are lost it sounds like you allocate all of the hits vs one shield. The second part says “can even split between them” sounds like you’re not required split up remaining failed saves.

A lascannon in 40k does D6 wounds but wounds don’t carry over to other models (unlike AoS). The fluff text says they risk both shields but the condition that you “can split” failed saves doesn’t sound like you have to.

You know personally I don’t even see the fluff in merging void shields, they sound like something that couldn’t merge in the first place.



[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/19 14:07:46


Post by: Sherrypie


Fajita Fan wrote:
The second part says “can even split between them” sounds like you’re not required split up remaining failed saves.

A lascannon in 40k does D6 wounds but wounds don’t carry over to other models (unlike AoS). The fluff text says they risk both shields but the condition that you “can split” failed saves doesn’t sound like you have to.


That's merely an expression to say "you know, normally you take X reductions from this one titan. You can do it now too, sure, but you can also put part of it on this titan, some on this guy and the rest on the third! How convenient, now you can keep all of them up by taking little damage here and there instead of leaving one unshielded!"

This is just the same kind of language game writers use when things take more damage than they have hit points or some equivalents, we've all seen this a thousand times. "Lose 2 HP. If you can't, lose all you have." Same type of situation.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/19 14:27:41


Post by: Fajita Fan


“Failed saves transfer to the next titan” would be a helpful sentence.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/19 14:35:28


Post by: SirWeeble


I'd have to side with Sherrypie on the shield question. Initially i thought the opposite, but the ambiguity of the rules combined with the fluff makes it seem that the intention is that both are risked.

I feel that overly literal interpretations that are common in 40k aren't going to work as well with AT. I have a feeling that GW/FW will be slower to do FAQs for a non-flagship game - if they do them at all.

Either way, It seems that this rule isn't particularly easy to exploit since warhounds only have a 2 for repair, so you can't just repeatedly collapse/block each turn since you need a 6+ to bring up the collapsed shield.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/19 14:41:40


Post by: Sherrypie


Fajita Fan wrote:
“Failed saves transfer to the next titan” would be a helpful sentence.


True. I just feel it's clear enough when you think of it as an atomistic operation: somethign shoots, something throws shield saves (be it a titan, a squadron of titans or a banner of knights). In this instance the squadron fails X saves, which means the squadron "pays" X VSG points divided as it likes and no machine can pay more than it has, obviously.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/19 14:50:26


Post by: Fajita Fan


I initially thought it worked that way with failed saves transferring. However they’re two separate models and it ended up sounding like you can treat each weapon attack as separate attacks that can potentially blow out one model’s shields.

They clarified the Knights melee bonus attacks so maybe this will get clarified too.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/22 06:58:34


Post by: Aexcaliber


A question to movement:

In the german Rulebook, the movement Rules and picture description are not similiar.

In the Rules it's said, a Diagonal Move within the front arc has the same range like a move straight foreward. But on the picture above, Is a exact diagonal Movement example, only with 2 Inches diagonal move.

What is correct?


Another question to the mission design.

The Mission Rules for Mission 1-2 in the Rulebook are not similiar to the Data Card from the Objectives Set. In the Book, a destroyed Titan gives Victory Points in Scale to its size. On the Data Card, the Victory Points are double the size. And even the Points for a damaged Titan shown in the Book and the Chart are completely different.



[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/22 07:05:24


Post by: tneva82


SirWeeble wrote:
Either way, It seems that this rule isn't particularly easy to exploit since warhounds only have a 2 for repair, so you can't just repeatedly collapse/block each turn since you need a 6+ to bring up the collapsed shield.


That's why the combining is so powerful even if shield collapse transfers. Not only you get to roll for 3+ longer you can keep both at 1 shield potentially longer. Then it is much easier to repair those further up than if you first need to roll that 6.

2 warlords with 1 shield up is more powerful than 1 with 2 and 1 with 0.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/22 11:53:11


Post by: Fajita Fan


Warlords don’t squadron though or did I miss that?


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/22 12:22:52


Post by: tneva82


Whoops typo. Meant to write warhound. 2 warhounds with 1 shield up is better than one with 2 shields and one with 0 shields.

edit: hrr. squadroned warlords...Might just as well write "these 2 are invincible"


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/22 12:52:01


Post by: midget_overlord


I was looking at the Arioch Power Claw, as I was thinking of converting my own since I don't like to proxy, then I realized the rules don't include the mega-bolter like the forge world model does.

Did they just forget it? At first I was thinking it might be a different pattern, but it's the Arioch power claw, so should be the same.

I hope they fix it when (if) it ever comes out! Small compensation for losing some firepower, I don't think it would be over-powered at all.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/22 13:37:11


Post by: Fajita Fan


tneva82 wrote:Whoops typo. Meant to write warhound. 2 warhounds with 1 shield up is better than one with 2 shields and one with 0 shields.

edit: hrr. squadroned warlords...Might just as well write "these 2 are invincible"

Yeah, that'd be scary. I hope to start playing out some games soon once my other Reavers are fully built and my Warlords are mostly painted - then I'll start working with squadroned Warhounds to see how they play.

midget_overlord wrote:I was looking at the Arioch Power Claw, as I was thinking of converting my own since I don't like to proxy, then I realized the rules don't include the mega-bolter like the forge world model does.

Did they just forget it? At first I was thinking it might be a different pattern, but it's the Arioch power claw, so should be the same.

I hope they fix it when (if) it ever comes out! Small compensation for losing some firepower, I don't think it would be over-powered at all.

My problem with a Warlord PF is how slow the model is, someone has to WANT to get their model in close to a Warlord for them to use it and you're giving up turns of shooting for weapon that may never attack.

In the book Titanicus a Warhound was described as having a spear arm, that would be frickin' cool!


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/22 14:38:03


Post by: SirWeeble


Aexcaliber wrote:
A question to movement:

In the german Rulebook, the movement Rules and picture description are not similiar.

In the Rules it's said, a Diagonal Move within the front arc has the same range like a move straight foreward. But on the picture above, Is a exact diagonal Movement example, only with 2 Inches diagonal move.

What is correct?


Another question to the mission design.

The Mission Rules for Mission 1-2 in the Rulebook are not similiar to the Data Card from the Objectives Set. In the Book, a destroyed Titan gives Victory Points in Scale to its size. On the Data Card, the Victory Points are double the size. And even the Points for a damaged Titan shown in the Book and the Chart are completely different.



question 1: moving forward and moving within the front arc are the same. So if you can move 6", you can move 6" anywhere within the front arc - That is unless you're doing a charge or some other special move that requires you to move straight forward.
question 2: don't have a book with me, so i can't answer.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/22 18:12:45


Post by: Sherrypie


Fajita Fan wrote:

midget_overlord wrote:I was looking at the Arioch Power Claw, as I was thinking of converting my own since I don't like to proxy, then I realized the rules don't include the mega-bolter like the forge world model does.

Did they just forget it? At first I was thinking it might be a different pattern, but it's the Arioch power claw, so should be the same.

I hope they fix it when (if) it ever comes out! Small compensation for losing some firepower, I don't think it would be over-powered at all.

My problem with a Warlord PF is how slow the model is, someone has to WANT to get their model in close to a Warlord for them to use it and you're giving up turns of shooting for weapon that may never attack.



I don't think they forgot it as much as they decided it plays better to not mingle weapons on same cards. A bit of a bummer, but keeps the warlord from "having a fourth weapon" by taking it and makes the fist a proper choice you need to have a plan for. And nah, you can easily enough get it in combat if you run towards things with reactors screaming. The point is that nobody wants to be there with it, so you can effectively deny area by running a Fistlord somewhere, which means you are getting something out of the weapon even if you don't destroy things with it. That does help winning in this game.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/22 21:14:44


Post by: tneva82


Certainly if you are willing to sacrifice shooting warlord can move quite fast. If you take claw i think macro gatling blasters and vulcan megabolter array are best as they are cheap and short ranged which helps with claw. Also no reactor draining which is good as you are pushing twice a turn plus shield pushing. Suddenly i want to try it


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/22 21:45:52


Post by: Fajita Fan


Well I’m 3D printing all the weapons that don’t exist so I’ll certainly try it but I feel like other titans can back off and you’re running one model into closer range to soak fire. Having to turn around buildings and obstacles could be an issue depending on your table.

Now if Warlords could merge shields...


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/22 22:34:59


Post by: Sherrypie


Fajita Fan wrote:
Well I’m 3D printing all the weapons that don’t exist so I’ll certainly try it but I feel like other titans can back off and you’re running one model into closer range to soak fire. Having to turn around buildings and obstacles could be an issue depending on your table.

Now if Warlords could merge shields...


No they won't if they have Hold the Line, if you have supporting flankers punishing them if they single it out etc.
It's also possible to step over / through buildings or just demolish them. Nobody expects the Spanish Warlord


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/23 06:59:00


Post by: Aexcaliber


SirWeeble wrote:
Aexcaliber wrote:
A question to movement:

In the german Rulebook, the movement Rules and picture description are not similiar.

In the Rules it's said, a Diagonal Move within the front arc has the same range like a move straight foreward. But on the picture above, Is a exact diagonal Movement example, only with 2 Inches diagonal move.

What is correct?


Another question to the mission design.

The Mission Rules for Mission 1-2 in the Rulebook are not similiar to the Data Card from the Objectives Set. In the Book, a destroyed Titan gives Victory Points in Scale to its size. On the Data Card, the Victory Points are double the size. And even the Points for a damaged Titan shown in the Book and the Chart are completely different.



question 1: moving forward and moving within the front arc are the same. So if you can move 6", you can move 6" anywhere within the front arc - That is unless you're doing a charge or some other special move that requires you to move straight forward.
question 2: don't have a book with me, so i can't answer.


Thanks! This helps us a lot.

Maybe anyone else can answer question2?

I'm just interested how the Rule writers resolved this in other languages. Especially in the english Rules.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/23 08:02:01


Post by: AndrewGPaul


Does a Charge require you to move straight forward? I've read it that you can't turn, but that moving anywhere in the front arc is fine.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/23 09:35:15


Post by: Sherrypie


There is no such thing as straight forward except with the Machine Spirit. Charges happen in front arc and Full Stride happens in a straight line, no turning in either.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/23 11:10:51


Post by: tneva82


Aexcaliber wrote:

The Mission Rules for Mission 1-2 in the Rulebook are not similiar to the Data Card from the Objectives Set. In the Book, a destroyed Titan gives Victory Points in Scale to its size. On the Data Card, the Victory Points are double the size. And even the Points for a damaged Titan shown in the Book and the Chart are completely different.

Maybe anyone else can answer question2?

I'm just interested how the Rule writers resolved this in other languages. Especially in the english Rules.


Hmm seems same for english. Scale for structural, double for destroyed with still scale table in the card. In rulebook no mention of doubling and table is different. Interesting.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/10/26 02:02:08


Post by: Patriarch


SirWeeble wrote:
Aexcaliber wrote:
A question to movement:

In the german Rulebook, the movement Rules and picture description are not similiar.

In the Rules it's said, a Diagonal Move within the front arc has the same range like a move straight foreward. But on the picture above, Is a exact diagonal Movement example, only with 2 Inches diagonal move.

What is correct?


question 1: moving forward and moving within the front arc are the same. So if you can move 6", you can move 6" anywhere within the front arc - That is unless you're doing a charge or some other special move that requires you to move straight forward.

It's in the English rulebook as well. The diagram clearly shows the reaver making a move in its front arc, but only going 3" , described as a half move in the text. So the diagram appears to contradict the text.
To make it clear, they should have shown the Reaver going 6" in the indicated direction, or sidestepping/reversing 3" .


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/11/04 18:32:50


Post by: Buckaroo13


Has anyone commented on the "Engage and Destroy" Mission?

The Mission Objective Card reads totally different frorm the same objective in the book?


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/11/04 20:57:14


Post by: tneva82


Yeah been discussed in couple previous posts. No official word what is correct one. Book one(IIRC) however had it so that there was almost never difference between structurally compromised and destroyed so eventhough it's likely the correct one I feel the card is more interesting.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/11/29 02:14:37


Post by: Gunrunner1775


I typed this up on the AT facebook

list of grey areas that need FAQ'd officialy from GW
(yes, some of these have been argued heatedly, and no, we do not have an official answer, use what ever "house rules" in your local area, this is posted only for reference so that folks know that yes, there are some issues, some debate in these areas)
1) warhound titan squadron merged void shields
(much debate if one warhound has X shields and another has 1 or more shields still active, and what happens when one warhound hits X shields from multiple hits, are they ignored per the rules or do they carry over to the next shielded warhound )
2) must fire ALL weapons if a titan fires at all (this is rules as written but was "clarified" on a reddit post or something, but not "officialy" )
3) Imperial Cerastus Knights ion shield save - conflict between what is written on the card vs what was stated in an "official" Warhammer community article
4) Quake Cannon - quake /concussion effect vs shielded target
5) Knights have a 360 degree front arc so currently cannot use the Outflank Stratagem (rear arc of model must be on the edge of the neutral board edge)
6) Targeted attacks currently require targets void shields to be offline, even if you are within 2" and so therefore target would not get saves
7) 'Assembling a battlegroup' flips back and forth between suggesting you may take only a single maniple and saying 'at least on maniple'
8) What happens to a blast weapon if it scatters back behind firer, and in addition hits the firer, which arc does it hit in.
9) what happens if a model is knocked off the table? This would happen via a concussive hit of course.
10) Why does the warlord power claw not have a range profile for Vulcan mega bolter array modeled on the it.
(not for real discussion, just posting the list so that folks are aware of the current ongoing rules questions / issues)


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/11/29 03:46:09


Post by: Fajita Fan


#1 I could see either way RAW vs RAI.

#4 I thought the weapon card said the concussion is only vs an unshielded target. What’s the question?

#9 would involve a lot of swearing.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/11/29 04:11:56


Post by: tneva82


 Fajita Fan wrote:
#1 I could see either way RAW vs RAI.

#4 I thought the weapon card said the concussion is only vs an unshielded target. What’s the question?

#9 would involve a lot of swearing.


4 it says if shot is not deflected. Arqument thus is if you fail save shot is not deflected. But i would say any shot that does not result in damage roll due to shields being up is deflected


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/11/29 07:50:31


Post by: Sherrypie


tneva82 wrote:
 Fajita Fan wrote:
#1 I could see either way RAW vs RAI.

#4 I thought the weapon card said the concussion is only vs an unshielded target. What’s the question?

#9 would involve a lot of swearing.


4 it says if shot is not deflected. Arqument thus is if you fail save shot is not deflected. But i would say any shot that does not result in damage roll due to shields being up is deflected


That argument is rather silly, though, since we all know void shields by definition deflect anything until they collapse and the shield roll isn't a save in traditional Warhammer sense but a check to see how well your shields hold under the enemy onslaught. No armour roll, no Concussion, no ambivalent confusion.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/11/29 08:00:02


Post by: tneva82


Oh no disagreement from me but that's the arqument. I disagree with it but seems common enough that it would fit into definition of F(requently) A(sked) Q(uestions). There's been answers to even more obvious and even rather silly questions so no harm in having this one on official FAQ either.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/12/01 19:04:54


Post by: Soulless


Knights with meltagun upgrades and issued a "full stride" order.

When they activate in the combat phase, can they use their meltagun upgrade?

I think yes since the meltagun upgrade isnt an attack as much as an effect triggered by the unit activating. But im not sure?


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/12/02 01:15:54


Post by: Patriarch


Soulless wrote:
Knights with meltagun upgrades and issued a "full stride" order.

When they activate in the combat phase, can they use their meltagun upgrade?

I think yes since the meltagun upgrade isnt an attack as much as an effect triggered by the unit activating. But im not sure?

I agree (and same with the Warlord's defence batteries, though that's possibly more clear cut since it doesn't even select a target) but it's a good question for the FAQ.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/12/02 04:27:33


Post by: Fajita Fan


Yeah it’s not a gun, it’s a defense bubble.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/12/02 10:07:54


Post by: Soulless


Another one:

When firing indirectly with a Barrage weapon, does the -2 hit penalty stack with possible accuracy modifiers?

In other words, an apocalypse missile launcher firing indirectly at long range gets -1 or -2 to its hit roll?


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/12/02 10:14:01


Post by: Sherrypie


Soulless wrote:
Another one:

When firing indirectly with a Barrage weapon, does the -2 hit penalty stack with possible accuracy modifiers?

In other words, an apocalypse missile launcher firing indirectly at long range gets -1 or -2 to its hit roll?


The modifiers do stack in general, but there is no inherent minus for long range, only cover (which is ignored by Barrage weapons). Apocalypse Missiles actually get +1 if you fire them from over 30" range.

So for an example a Warlord (hits on 3+) can fire Barrage somewhere on 5+, or on a 4+ if at long range. It can then even fire aimed shots with an additional penalty of -2 if you wish or the accuracy could take -2 from Blind barrage stratagem etc.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/12/02 13:51:06


Post by: Soulless


 Sherrypie wrote:
Soulless wrote:
Another one:

When firing indirectly with a Barrage weapon, does the -2 hit penalty stack with possible accuracy modifiers?

In other words, an apocalypse missile launcher firing indirectly at long range gets -1 or -2 to its hit roll?


The modifiers do stack in general, but there is no inherent minus for long range, only cover (which is ignored by Barrage weapons). Apocalypse Missiles actually get +1 if you fire them from over 30" range.

So for an example a Warlord (hits on 3+) can fire Barrage somewhere on 5+, or on a 4+ if at long range. It can then even fire aimed shots with an additional penalty of -2 if you wish or the accuracy could take -2 from Blind barrage stratagem etc.


Yeah i was thinking of the +1 apocs give, if it stacks it makes a long range indirect attack hit with a -1 not -2.

But you said aomething about targeted attacks, can we really make those with an indirect attack?


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/12/02 13:53:47


Post by: tneva82


Looks like rulewise nothing stops. Can't use with blast templates(unlike august WD articles claimed) but don't see anything preventing with indirect...Which feels silly though albeit works only with very few weapons. Needs to be indirect, +1 to hit somewhere, non blast weapon. Apoc missile and that's about it.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/12/02 16:12:42


Post by: Patriarch


Soulless wrote:


But you said aomething about targeted attacks, can we really make those with an indirect attack?

Technically yes, as long as the score needed to hit is no worse than 6+. This is possible with an apocalypse launcher at long range (BS3+, +1 from the weapon, -2 for targeted attack, -2 from indirect barrage, so hit on a 6.

I assume that this is unintentional so might be fixed in the FAQ, but the rules don't say you can't do it.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/12/02 18:29:46


Post by: Fajita Fan


I would understand them saying no targeting on indirect fire but I actually kinda like goading my friend into targeting to lower his effective BS.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/12/02 19:01:06


Post by: tneva82


 Fajita Fan wrote:
I would understand them saying no targeting on indirect fire but I actually kinda like goading my friend into targeting to lower his effective BS.


Then again apoc missile has S4 so rarely able to damage...Except when one location is compromised at which point reduced hit chance is compensated by target not having "invulnerable" save in form of location dice. You don't aim for lots of damage. One or two hits is enough as it could cause crtical or even finish off titan


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/12/02 19:52:36


Post by: Sherrypie


tneva82 wrote:
 Fajita Fan wrote:
I would understand them saying no targeting on indirect fire but I actually kinda like goading my friend into targeting to lower his effective BS.


Then again apoc missile has S4 so rarely able to damage...Except when one location is compromised at which point reduced hit chance is compensated by target not having "invulnerable" save in form of location dice. You don't aim for lots of damage. One or two hits is enough as it could cause crtical or even finish off titan


At the point where you have +3 to injured locations, anything can do them in. Anything with lots of dice is good. I just had a bunch of games where megabolters did horrendous things to Reavers and Warhounds ruled the roost, even when some burned down on their own. Blasted things, it's almost like they can't repair or something


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/12/02 20:13:43


Post by: tneva82


Yep. That's where the indirect aimed fire would be used.

Still. That feels so non-intuitive I won't be using even if rare situation comes up where it might be helpful. At least with warlords doubt situation comes up all that often it would be useful. Reaver with it's 360 degree it might be more of a real situation though. But firing aimed shots indirectly just feels so...wrong.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/12/02 20:21:02


Post by: Sherrypie


tneva82 wrote:
Yep. That's where the indirect aimed fire would be used.

Still. That feels so non-intuitive I won't be using even if rare situation comes up where it might be helpful. At least with warlords doubt situation comes up all that often it would be useful. Reaver with it's 360 degree it might be more of a real situation though. But firing aimed shots indirectly just feels so...wrong.


"Princeps, we have a situation. Target is in coordinates XYZ, aim 20 metres higher to disable its main gun please..."


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/12/02 20:35:39


Post by: tneva82


One could argue on similar reason why volcano cannon cannot be used to fire the shell straight at body. At least that one you can see where you are aiming at


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/12/02 20:49:50


Post by: Mr_Rose


Volcano cannon don’t use shells. But yeah, direct fire being unable to aim, especially when it’s a beam weapon, does seem a bit silly. On the other hand, the rules must contain a degree of gameishness in order to be playable. And also because we don’t actually have a the proper knowledge of how obscenely huge laser weapons work in order to simulate them accurately.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/12/26 14:40:14


Post by: Soulless


Does hits gained from a falling Titan allow for shield saves?

I would absolutely claim NO since it makes sense as attacks within 2" ignore shields and a falling knight not moving at ballistic speeds etc, but if following the rules strictly I dont see anything forbidding shieldsaved against it?

Im missing something or is this just a small oversight?


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/12/29 02:08:32


Post by: Fajita Fan


Good question.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/12/29 08:31:38


Post by: tneva82


Well easy enough if titan is within 2". Shields ignored. Knights alsy never get shield as that's shooting only. Tricky if titan is beyond 2". Technically shields protect there and one can arque both way fluffwise


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2018/12/29 14:22:15


Post by: Sherrypie


We've played Falls without shields, as it is a crashing and stumbling engine that's colliding with the others. I would generally advocate that, unless you want to houserule some nittygritty bits in there, say: if the fall is blocked by a building, things beyond can take shield saves as they're showered in debris.

In general, nah. It's cool to have highly dangerous Falls, incentivises caution in grouping your things.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2019/02/15 07:10:02


Post by: habedekrai37



Hello guys,

do you know how does the "Voids to full" works with the "Merging Void Shields" form the squadrons? I think there are three possibilities:

1. The reactors of the original target will be pushed, no matter whose shield level you use
2. The reactors of the machine whose shield level you takes will be pushed or
3. The player can choose

Other question: Legion Astorum, attribute: "Veteran Princeps": Does it mean "once per game"?

Thanks a lot!

Alex


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2019/02/15 07:43:11


Post by: tneva82


habedekrai37 wrote:

Hello guys,

do you know how does the "Voids to full" works with the "Merging Void Shields" form the squadrons? I think there are three possibilities:

1. The reactors of the original target will be pushed, no matter whose shield level you use
2. The reactors of the machine whose shield level you takes will be pushed or
3. The player can choose

Other question: Legion Astorum, attribute: "Veteran Princeps": Does it mean "once per game"?

Thanks a lot!

Alex


Been bugging me and sent question about this to SG hoping it becomes FAQ.

1 is least powerful for squadrons, 3 is most powerful. I would avoid 3 because with regalia maniple that makes warlords with warhounds near impervious to shooting(took 2 turns from 5 warhounds and reaver to bring one down in one of our games when we played with 3...). But hopefully FAQ clears it up.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2019/02/15 10:57:23


Post by: Sherrypie


Somewhat ambiguous indeed, as the attack sequence talks about the target but merging says you can choose which shield level is used. I can see both "use the target's reactor" and "use the reactor of the titan whose shield level is used" being used, as long as you are consistent with it and have agreed with your opponent which way to go. Getting to choose freely seems too powerful, I agree.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2019/02/16 02:38:12


Post by: Voronesh


What is your opinion on charges by Knights concerning the movement?

Charges disallow turns once you start moving. BUT

Changing direction is not a turn and a titan may change direction within its front arc as often as it wants, which allows it to get around a corner of a skyscraper it might have hidden behind.

Knight models have a full 360° front arc and their weaponry has a full 360 arc as well.

Thus a Knight model never needs to turn to move anywhere as presented RAW.

How do you handle that within your games? If Knight banners get to use the full 360° arc and changing direction as given, they get to charge around anything.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2019/02/18 10:16:11


Post by: habedekrai37


Since the knights have a 360 ° front arc, the orientation of the model does not matter in my opinion. In this respect a Charge would be permissible in any direction.






[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2019/02/18 11:06:31


Post by: tneva82


Think the question is more of can the knight charge at heading 230, then change to 290, then head toward 45 for example creating sort of U shaped charge line.

Me I play can charge any direction but once charging heading is locked like with titans.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2019/02/20 19:41:25


Post by: Spartan-Kun


I've not seen this question asked and my friend and I can't seem to decide how this should work:

Doin a min. Regia Battleline (2 warlords, 1 warhound) as Legio Gryphonicus and replacing the warhound with a reaver.

Does the reaver get to merge shields with the warlords and later on the warhounds if they're included?


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2019/02/20 21:10:41


Post by: AndrewGPaul


You need to be in a squadron with another titan to merge shields. A titan's Command Terminal will tell you if it can form a squadron. Look at the Command Terminals for the Reaver and Warhound and there's your answer.

Spoiler:
No.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2019/02/20 21:14:33


Post by: Spartan-Kun


The Regia Battleine Maniple says that the warhounds in the maniple can merge with the warlords as though they were in the same squadron.

It says that the warlords are the "king and queen" and they get a special rule, then calls the warhounds "courtiers" and says they can merge shields with the king and queen in order to protect them.

My question is, if a reaver replaces a warhound does it become a courtier and allow it to merge with the warlords?


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2019/02/21 07:24:42


Post by: Sherrypie


A titan doesn't count as any other class, as that would be both counterintuitively convoluted and require tracking. An example case is a Gryphonicus Venator, where you can have two Reavers and choose on the fly which one gets to shoot if opportunities rise.

In Regia, RAW is clear by saying Warhounds can merge, so no luck with Reavers. Intent of the maniple is also clear and goes the other way, though: the ruling pair supported by smaller servants. Personally I would not play a Reaver there, but would allow it for my opponent if they wanted, as it still follows the intent of the maniple, even if it does get somewhat stronger and synergizes better.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2019/02/21 14:39:52


Post by: Nostromodamus


RAW, Regia says Courtiers can merge with the King and Queen. It does specify Warlords represent the King and Queen, and Warhounds the Courtiers, but I can see the ambiguity if those classes are subbed out.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2019/02/21 20:01:44


Post by: Spartan-Kun


And that ambiguity is what's causing issues lol I could see it going either way. Due to the models I have I'm still going to run Regia with Gryphonicus but Id like to be certain what that does.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2019/02/21 21:35:06


Post by: AndrewGPaul


Sorry, I missed the significance of the Regia Maniple when I replied.

In the absence of a clarification from GW, you’re going to have to come to some arrangement with your friends. I’d be inclined to say no, but I understand the arguments the other way.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2019/03/13 11:04:14


Post by: Zenithfleet


This is probably in the rulebook (sorry) and what White Dwarf mag back in the day used to call an 'SQ', but I don't have a copy handy right now...

When rolling a 6 or a 1 grants a bonus or penalty, and the rules don't specify that it has to be a natural 6 or 1, do you get the effect due to modifiers?

Or is there a blanket ruling that all such bonuses and penalties must be natural rolls?

Example: A weapon with the Rapid trait (6s count as two hits IIRC) fires with a +1 modifier to hit for short range. Does each die roll of 5 count as causing two hits (because the modifier makes it a 6)?

Thanks





[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2019/03/19 11:06:24


Post by: habedekrai37


The german rule says, the result must be a 6. In my opinion, a natural 5, which is modified with +1, counts as a 6 for the rapit trait.

Greetings


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2019/03/30 22:49:56


Post by: Nostromodamus


Maybe I missed it in the thread or the rulebook, but can Concussive weapons really just push pristine Warlords off the table and “kill” them?


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2019/03/30 23:20:15


Post by: Sherrypie


 Nostromodamus wrote:
Maybe I missed it in the thread or the rulebook, but can Concussive weapons really just push pristine Warlords off the table and “kill” them?


I don't think there is any word on it that I'd remember. Personally I'd stop it at the edge and talk with the other player whether we ought to require it to move "back on the field" next turn, just reroll to turn it instead or cause collision damage for "hitting the wall" of the area. Getting pushed out is very much not the intention there, I feel.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2019/03/31 07:55:45


Post by: Soulless


AFAIK there is nothing in the rulebook dealing with moving off the table/battlefield, aside from mission specific rules that allow a titan to leave the table to fulfill certain objectives.

I would prefer that titans stop at the table edge, just to keep the game interesting and not force an already small battlefield to become even smaller.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2019/04/11 13:05:44


Post by: Valkyrie


Bit confused about the wording for Astorum's War March

Titandeath Page 19 wrote:...a Legio Astorum Titan can choose to add 2" to it's boosted Movement characteristic. If a Titan uses this boosted speed, then whenever it is required to roll the Reactor dice, it must roll twice and choose the least favourable result...


Myself and others have played it as "You can choose to add 2" whenever it moves, and must roll twice when boosting the movement", but the wording seems to imply that "you have to roll twice for any reactor activity, such as Draining or Voids to Full".

Any ideas on what is correct?


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2019/04/11 18:54:03


Post by: Mr_Rose


 Valkyrie wrote:
Bit confused about the wording for Astorum's War March

Titandeath Page 19 wrote:...a Legio Astorum Titan can choose to add 2" to it's boosted Movement characteristic. If a Titan uses this boosted speed, then whenever it is required to roll the Reactor dice, it must roll twice and choose the least favourable result...


Myself and others have played it as "You can choose to add 2" whenever it moves, and must roll twice when boosting the movement", but the wording seems to imply that "you have to roll twice for any reactor activity, such as Draining or Voids to Full".

Any ideas on what is correct?
When you boost, you can choose to add another 2” to that boosted move for the cost of rolling an extra reactor die and discarding the better result.
I’m pretty sure the extra roll only apples to that boost-move and only if you choose to add the extra movement.
If, for some reason, you have to roll more reactor dice during that move, the rule would apply then too, I think. Definitely if some Effect is forcing you to roll two dice for boosted movement already; then you’d roll four dice and keep the worst two. Or two pairs of dice and keep the worst from each.


The really question to my mind is which is the “worst” roll for this rule. Specifically when you roll an awakened machine spirit and a double-push…


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2019/04/11 20:24:18


Post by: Nostromodamus


It’s really bad rules writing to say “worst” result when there’s no established order of “best to worst”. Like Mr Rose said, Awakened Machine Spirit and double reactor push can both be considered “worst” by different people or in different situations.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2019/04/12 09:16:06


Post by: Gunrunner1775


In regards to the merged shields discussion for warhound squadrons (and Regia Maniple)

I refer back to the spirit of the game from the '88 version of adeptus titanicus (I still have the rules) in which all Titans (at that time we only had warlord titans) could merge shields, and a shielded titan could expand its shields to protect an unshielded titan (the rules back then were written with a lot more detail and clarity I feel )

If one of the warhounds has zero shields and another in the squadron does have void shields, then yes, can still "merge" shields to protect the unshielded titan

In our games, we follow the standard shield rules in conjunction with the squadron rule,
the player uses the best shield save from the squadron, and then chooses which titan shields are removed from, can spread them out, or put all the hits on one titan and perhaps blowing out the shields (eventualy 1 titan will hit zero shields and blow out befor the other titans and the blow out, per the rules, any remaining hits are lost and do NOT transfer)
we have had zero issues, zero game ballance issues,
as many have stated, the benefits might seem powerful, but the handicap of trying to keep maneuver and keep the titans in base to base contact is a challenge

the biggest grey area is when it comes to shields to full, pushing the reactor to get reroll of 1's for failed shield saves and definatly needs clarification in the official FAQ
to solve this issue, we do the following:

NOTE: you target a single titan with a weapon attack, you do not target an entire squadron, even though multiple titans in a squadron could be hit by a blast template

the single TITAN that is TARGET of the attack is the only one that can REACT to the attack, and thus is the only one that can push shields to full, IF the target has no shields, they can not react, and thus can not push the shields, however they can still receive shield saves by being in a squadron and the failed saves worked out as written above

While this might seem a powerful ability, smart and proper target selection and shooting has proven that merged shields are not even close to being over powered as some would think

high volumn low strength fire power forcing the defender to blow out the shields of one of the titans (and perhaps pushing the reactor significantly in the process) then focus fire on the unshielded titan, in this instance, he can no longer push all shields to full to get rerolls even though he will get shield saves. Now comes another tactical decision, continue to use low strength weapons on the squadron, in which case the defender has to choose to use merged shields to protect, or gamble that his armor will protect him

in regards to the regia maniple, shoot the hell outa the warhound, its got extremly limited reactor in comparison to the warlord, it can only push it so far



[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2019/04/12 12:31:31


Post by: Patriarch


 Valkyrie wrote:
Bit confused about the wording for Astorum's War March

Titandeath Page 19 wrote:...a Legio Astorum Titan can choose to add 2" to it's boosted Movement characteristic. If a Titan uses this boosted speed, then whenever it is required to roll the Reactor dice, it must roll twice and choose the least favourable result...


Myself and others have played it as "You can choose to add 2" whenever it moves, and must roll twice when boosting the movement", but the wording seems to imply that "you have to roll twice for any reactor activity, such as Draining or Voids to Full".

Any ideas on what is correct?

You are definitely playing it right. "If a Titan uses this boosted speed, then whenever..." Using the boosted speed is a spur-of-the-moment thing that any Astorum titan can choose to take during any move. It's not something you declare \at the start of the game "These two Titans will be using War March in this battle, but these three won't". So it only applies to boosted movement, and even then only when you choose to take the extra 2" on top.

For least favourable, I'd suggest to house rule always [Reactor1 + machine Spirit]>>[Reactor 2]>>[Reactor 1]>>[Blank]. Reactor 2 sucks, but outside of specific game situations, risking your titan not acting as you want is probably generally worse than 2 reactor jumps. Alternatively, it's fairest to always let your opponent decide which result is "worse" in any given situation.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2019/04/12 14:28:20


Post by: Nostromodamus


But then you run into situations where two reactor advances leads you to take damage, but one advance with machine spirit makes you potentially do something you don’t want to.

Which is the “worst” result?

I love this game but dodgy rules writing like this is inexcusable, especially considering who wrote it.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2019/04/12 19:04:21


Post by: Sherrypie


The order for least favourable in my opinion and experience would be 2 heat > Spirit > 1 heat > 0 heat, seeing how the Spirit result most often doesn't actually result in anything besides one heat. As long as all players are clear on what they hold out to be the correct order in the beginning of the game, 2 heat or Spirit, just take that and go with it. "The opponent decides" would also be cool as a house rule.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2019/04/13 17:30:30


Post by: crnaguja


If we take into a consideration the spirit of the rules, then 2 reactor dice is worse than 1 reactor + machine spirit because you are pushing your reactors to do this extra movement, and then you push it some more to move more. So, what is more "damaging" to titans plasma reactor? To become more unstable and closer to meltdown (2 reactors dice), or that titans machine spirit rebels because you are asking too much from it? (1 reactor + spirit)
To me its clear that 2 reactors dice is worse, and everybody I played with agrees, but for official sanction we will have to wait for FAQ.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2019/04/26 19:39:36


Post by: Patriarch


 crnaguja wrote:

To me its clear that 2 reactors dice is worse, and everybody I played with agrees, but for official sanction we will have to wait for FAQ.


Engaging "Smug Mode"


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2019/04/26 23:47:35


Post by: Valkyrie


Glad they've cleared up the Knight charging shenanigans, and toned down the number of attacks you can generate.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2019/04/27 07:28:10


Post by: Patriarch


 Valkyrie wrote:
Glad they've cleared up the Knight charging shenanigans, and toned down the number of attacks you can generate.

Were many people playing it the more powerful way? Until the author's clarification appeared a few months ago I thought that was what the rules meant. Is this likely to make knights much less popular?


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2019/04/27 09:10:17


Post by: tneva82


Few months? That was like within month of game coming out!


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2019/04/29 10:18:43


Post by: Valkyrie


Patriarch wrote:
 Valkyrie wrote:
Glad they've cleared up the Knight charging shenanigans, and toned down the number of attacks you can generate.

Were many people playing it the more powerful way? Until the author's clarification appeared a few months ago I thought that was what the rules meant. Is this likely to make knights much less popular?


I've seen in a few battle reports where Knights are charging round corners, and even cases where the actual distance moved from A to B was about 2", but they guy's said "yeah they move 5" out then 5" back in" to get an extra 9 attacks.

I'm glad that Knights now can only charge in a straight line, and they've toned down the number of attacks. It seemed a bit too powerful for a squad of 3 to get 12 attacks on the charge hitting on 2+ with automatic targeting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Additionally, just want to clear up a rules query; if I awake the Machine Spirit but pass the command check, do I still make the action or does it cancel wherever or not I pass the test?


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2019/04/29 15:27:01


Post by: Sherrypie


You make the action, as the Spirit doesn't wake.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2020/02/15 16:15:02


Post by: Mr_Rose


OK, here’s one for the collective: what does it mean for a weapon to be “critically damaged” as on the new main gun cards for the Warbringer?


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2020/02/18 13:04:17


Post by: stato


I see that Legios replacing titan types in maniples no longer benefit from some of the special rules of that maniple, was that expected? all the titanicus guides ive read suggested people thought otherwise, and plenty of fun was to be had putting different titans into maniples. Im still new to AT so dont know if this was covered before or frowned upon. Seems to have trod heavilly on Legio Fortidus (the legion i was planning to play).

Q. In a similar vein, when a Titan is replaced in a maniple with a Titan of another class due to a Legio Trait, does that Titan benefit from all the rules the replaced Titan would, some of them, or none of them?
A. It depends. Any non-specific rules apply to the Titan, i.e., any that do not specify the class of the Titan, but not those which specify the class of the Titan if it is different. For example, if the Reaver from a Venator Light Maniple was replaced with a Warlord Titan, the Warlord would not benefit from the Opportunistic Strike rule – this specifically references a Reaver Titan. However, if a Reaver from an Axiom Battleline Maniple was replaced by a Warlord, the Warlord would benefit from the Might of the Omnissiah rule as that refers to any class of Titans in the maniple.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2020/02/18 22:40:58


Post by: Sherrypie


They never did, this was precisely as expected. Gives Fortidus a unique quirk and in general means allrounder maniples are more flexible than those built around singular lead engines.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2020/02/19 11:53:39


Post by: stato


 Sherrypie wrote:
They never did, this was precisely as expected. Gives Fortidus a unique quirk and in general means allrounder maniples are more flexible than those built around singular lead engines.


Ok thanks, a lot of the reviews id read had suggested otherwise but good to know there is still use in playing them the correct way. As I say, still new to this so going more off what Ive read as im still building titans so not played yet.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2020/02/21 23:30:57


Post by: Sherrypie


In other news, I just read Shadow and Iron and spotted a nicely secluded rule clearance about the intent of Titan Hunter Infantry stratagem, again in the narrative section. Page 71, Battle of the Aquila Atoll:

"...[mission details about marker placement]. However, THI markers are not removed after they fire like normal, instead staying upon the battlefield until they are destroyed."

So the debate on THI when DoM was released, about do you always have just the two markers or do you get new ones every turn on top of the previously placed, is therefore resolved. Only two teams at a time normally, you may now sleep peacefully.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2020/02/27 14:23:17


Post by: Valkyrie


Just wondering if I can have some clarification on how merging Voids works?

Played a game a couple of weeks back, the guy was running a Fortis Maniple with 4x Warlords, base to base to merge their shields.

A - B - C - D

If I shot at D for example, he would push A's reactor to reroll 1's on D's shields. If the shields dropped he would take them off B. If I then decided to shoot B he would push C's reactor to reroll the shields, and take them off D.

I drop B's shields at last, but for any future hits against B, he's still pushing A's reactor and taking them off A's shields.

In his turn he rolls repair for A and uses it to reignite B's shields.

Is this the correct way to do it? I have doubts as otherwise it's a damn-near impenetrable shield wall and not fun to play against at all.

On the other hand if it is correct, how could I actually take this list on? His placement meant I couldn't outflank them without getting out of arc, and anything that did threaten him was quickly Quaked out of arc.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2020/02/27 14:49:33


Post by: MarkNorfolk


A titan can't repair another titan's void shields. Merging shields is for resisting attacks only.

Titan's doing a testudo are a tough nut to crack, but the number of weapons tht ignore shields is increasing and I find 'Static Rain' to be a helpful stratagem under such circumstances. If you can weather the fire then the curse of Merging will manifest - all the titans will have hardly any shields between them.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2020/02/27 14:57:23


Post by: Sherrypie


That is not correct.

First, shields can only be merged if the titans in question are in base contact, so if they were in a line A can not merge with D. Second, repair rolls never affect any other engine, so only B can raise B's shields. Third, how are you having problems outflanking the most ponderous thing in the game (btb stuck warlords) when that's like 2000 points and you could have so much more activations on board half of their shots cannot even get you in their arc? Fourth, a close formation like that is dead in the water against melee Reavers, plasma blast showers, Quake cannons, strafing runs and artillery support.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2020/02/27 16:45:14


Post by: Valkyrie


It's more that his positioning meant he could cover a wide proportion of the board despite not having to move, closing the gap was difficult due to the Quake Cannons.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2020/02/27 18:28:31


Post by: Sherrypie


Remember Quake only works against unshielded targets, you should be able to close in the beginning quite happily. If they can also fire all the time without moving, get more terrain.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2020/03/06 10:44:30


Post by: Sherrypie


Noting that the FAQ was updated:

- Warbringer top gun now has Carapace
- Tracer Cloud and Concealment Barrage are used at the Strategy phase instead of any phase

All good.


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2020/03/06 19:07:05


Post by: FrozenDwarf


So is a knight household force counted as a maniple?

I still cant seem to get any answere from GW if a houshold can take titans as reinforcments........


[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2020/03/06 20:18:13


Post by: midget_overlord


It says you can take Titan reinforcements, but not maniples.

Look up the doom of molech FAQ section.



[Adeptus Titanicus] {Q&A} AT rules questions thread @ 2020/03/06 21:33:23


Post by: Sherrypie


 FrozenDwarf wrote:
So is a knight household force counted as a maniple?

I still cant seem to get any answere from GW if a houshold can take titans as reinforcments........


It is not. When you build a battlegroup, you either do that around maniples or lances. Both cannot be in the same army. This also sets what list of stratagems you are using.

A household can take titans as reinforcements, but they are individuals. They can have Legio rules, though, just not maniples.