What exactly are Titans used for?

I read in Vigilus Ablaze that titans were ill suited to fight in the dense city hab blocksthere. But you can't always choose to have an enemy that is so obliging it would fight you on the nice flat ground of your own choosing. It seems to me that Titans seem to function as a very limited long range bombardment role and that's about it. Many stories I have read about titans in action have been on nice flat desert or barren land.

They aren't used in space boarding actions. They can't be used in cities.They are not flyers. Seriously, it just seems to me that their role is so limited I wonder why they even exist in the first place. Why spend so much resources building such massive titans who end up being only able to operate in rather limited combat theaters of wars.

Different titans are better for different terrains. Some of them are actually super good in urban environments, able to take out entire buildings full of defenders and more maneuverable than tanks/etc that would be stuck in the streets.

Also titans are used in boarding actions. In path of the eldar the imperium sends tons of titans into a craftworld, and they do a ton of damage (while also being more vulnerable than usual, but that's to be expected).

Because Titans are the masters of their niche.

Yes they have a lot of drawbacks, but you don't want to be stuck in an open field facing an enemy titan without one yourself.

I imagine with their sensors they see better than most vehicles and most manhandled weapons are insufficient to get through the Titans defences.

In the novel Titanicus the titans had good sensors. With those sensors they had a clear advantage in the built up area. I envision that they would be an advantage in forested areas as well.

Legs I would imagine are also extremely useful on soft ground. In mud flats, where you sink up to knees, they are fairly impassable to vehicles, but we can struggle through. There is nothing like raising up a leg; moving it forward; and then lowering it; compared to a wheel/track spinning and just kicking up mud.

With their combination of firepower; armour and shields; and mobility; and sensors; they would likely have an advantage in urban, suburban; rural; forested; desert; and swamp areas.

I agree with the OP. Dense forest or jungle would be impassable. Particularly mountainous terrain would be no good. Most urban environments too, apart from wide, ground level streets

 Snake Tortoise wrote:
I agree with the OP. Dense forest or jungle would be impassable. Particularly mountainous terrain would be no good. Most urban environments too, apart from wide, ground level streets

I agree with them not being very good in mountains, but titans could probably just walk through or over the forest.

Ill-suited for dense habblocks does not necessarily mean poor maneuverability.

Remember both sides with Titans are trying to take/keep the planet. Destroying the habblocks wholesale with titan battles is not a very good idea with the end-goal in mind.

For Chaos, the residents would be better corrupted.

For the Imperium, you want them alive and not turning to Chaos in dissidence.

If Chaos moves their titans up to the habblocks, the Imperium has ti move theirs to the other end and fight with the habblocks between them/within the habblocks; this leaves too much collateral damage.

Plus, most planets that are not gas giants in the Imperium ARE barren rocks with crater scarred surfaces. Look at Mercury, Mars, Pluto etc. in our own solar system. That doesn't even get to the various moons!

If you put a titan on the ground, the enemy can not come out and face it. Therefore, they have to hole up in their fortresses and bunkers. Immobile enemies are nearly defeated enemies.

we should also remember, titans are rare. They are more rare than superheavies, which themselves are quite rare. Your average battle is AFVs, troops, artillery, and air support, just like now.

 kastelen wrote:

 Snake Tortoise wrote:
I agree with the OP. Dense forest or jungle would be impassable. Particularly mountainous terrain would be no good. Most urban environments too, apart from wide, ground level streets

I agree with them not being very good in mountains, but titans could probably just walk through or over the forest.

Jungle and Forrest no worries.
Being in heavy industry myself, and seeing a D9 dozer (Weighing 48,990kg) not even blinking when strolling straight through mature pine Forrest, or buildings (Both concrete and steel)
A titan would be 3-4 times that weight and probably 10 times the horsepower would not even break stride walking through an average Forrest or Jungle.

and If one were thinking that a titan might "Slip" or "Trip" this would not happen either, because at a certain weight these machines are not really traversing what we see as the ground, they are actually driving of the clay underneath. - The only exception to this would be a walking/traversing on a Rock layer.

so Jungle, Forrest, Buildings it does not matter to a Titan. only some of the smaller knights would have issue with this.

I doubt most terrain would be much of a problem for a titan. If you can't walk across it blast it to hell and boom nice flat wasteland to walk across.

Much like most of 40k, don't think about it to much. Bi pedal tanks as a whole don't make much sense and one the size of a building run on rule of cool.

Well, go to the Ork versions. Specifically the larger Gargants which insanly large track systems that allow them to pack more and more guns, more sheilds and more armor than their imperial counterparts. Essentially they are massive bastions of orky killiness on the move.

Outside of that, yes, imperial titans would be hilariously impractical in most scenarios. Rough terrain or slopes would give them issues and the difficulty to deploy and redeploy them sort of stick them into the role of intimidation and application of firepower onto fortifications.

In most situations the spacecraft you see in 40K would perform the same role of bombardment rather well if not better.

Think of War of the Worlds and the Martian robots on the river.

Titans don't need bridges. They can cross to either side as needed to combat the enemy who need a bridge. Such flanking attacks would harass an enemy to no end.

The thing about cities are they normally have open lands around them. If you want to get to the city to fight...you have to get past the titans patrolling those zones...hard to take a city if you cannot approach it.

There's also scenarios where even if the Imperium wants to preserve a city, they know they're gonna have to mess it up to protect it. Stuff like Helsreach where they had imperators wandering the streets fighting Gargants, or in Betrayer where they had reavers fighting warhounds without any visibility in a city covered in smoke and ash.

Remember, this is the same universe where ground supremacy > air supremacy because of the usefulness of void shields and anti-air. It's why Horus had to take Beta-Garmon in order to attack Terra, they couldn't just go past it since they needed to warp in in-system which would leave them vulnerable to attacks launched from the planet. Solution? Titans! Thousands of them!

Remember this is the same Imperium which will wipe out all life on a planet then move in to use it again.

The Imperium doesn't really care much for local flora and fauna. Look at how many worlds are habited by vast hive cities. Huge towering structures that are almost akin to a spaceship in how they are self contained. Pumping out pollutants and the like. Many a world is likely so toxic that the air has already rendered many of the local plants to ruin.

Titans - For when something absolutely, positively without exception needs to die.

Also quite often used as literal spearheads on enemy fortifications and quite often used as moral boosters. Nothing gets the common soldier motivated like a walking mountain of imperial faith that's on THEIR side.

The real reason is someone thought Tians looked cool back in the dim and distant past, so now they have to justify their existence. As a weapon of war their pretty terrible. They have a ridiculously large profile, especially given the relatively small number of weapons one of them carries, legs are one of the worst ways to move around and make you very vulnerable to attack and susceptible to malfunction. Deployment and battlefield logistics are extremely problematic too.

So try not to think about the logic of Titans too much. They look cool and you can write cool stories about them, and that's pretty much all you need to know.

Slipspace wrote:They look cool and you can write cool stories about them, and that's pretty much all you need to know.

Aye, the cool factor is probably even more important than the (extremely destructive) weapons they can carry. They're not just another fighting unit, they're a symbol of Imperial might for all who see them. Like deploying a battleship to "fight" Somali pirates - not cost-efficient or very effective from a mlitary standpoint but an incredible show of power. Enemies are demoralized by the huge guns, void shields and armor, friendlies are boosted by the mere sight.

Eldenfirefly wrote:
What exactly are Titans used for?

What exactly are chainsword for? They suck as a weapon. A good non-chain sword will be better, unless you want to cut thinks that are standing still (which isn't what happens in combat).
They are used for looking cool. Like TItans.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Eldenfirefly wrote:
What exactly are Titans used for?

What exactly are chainsword for? They suck as a weapon. A good non-chain sword will be better, unless you want to cut thinks that are standing still (which isn't what happens in combat).
They are used for looking cool. Like TItans.

I dunno chainsaws tend to go through flesh like - well - a hot knife through melted butter! Swap those teeth made for wood for thick beefy ones for metal and toughened flesh and you've got something that won't glance off the target, but bite and eat into it! Back it up with some supermuscle and a power-exo-suit!

for me at least, the reason why Titans or any other kind of huge bipedal walker never made sense to me is their extreme vulnerability to aerial attack. Though the 40k universe is hardly an outlier in this regard, the amount of battles in that could have decided by airpower is staggering. Most frustating is that from the little snippets we get we now that almost every factions in the 40k universe does possess formidable aeral warfare capabilities.

 Beersarius Drawl wrote:

 kastelen wrote:

 Snake Tortoise wrote:
I agree with the OP. Dense forest or jungle would be impassable. Particularly mountainous terrain would be no good. Most urban environments too, apart from wide, ground level streets

I agree with them not being very good in mountains, but titans could probably just walk through or over the forest.

Jungle and Forrest no worries.
Being in heavy industry myself, and seeing a D9 dozer (Weighing 48,990kg) not even blinking when strolling straight through mature pine Forrest, or buildings (Both concrete and steel)
A titan would be 3-4 times that weight and probably 10 times the horsepower would not even break stride walking through an average Forrest or Jungle.

and If one were thinking that a titan might "Slip" or "Trip" this would not happen either, because at a certain weight these machines are not really traversing what we see as the ground, they are actually driving of the clay underneath. - The only exception to this would be a walking/traversing on a Rock layer.

so Jungle, Forrest, Buildings it does not matter to a Titan. only some of the smaller knights would have issue with this.

Indeed. I'm a plant driver, Q'd on JCB light wheelies for work, which would probably be considered fairly small in plant terms, and even that can go through large trees fairly easily.

D9s are badass. I built a scale IDF version last year, and while looking through subject material for reference I saw and read accounts of them taking IED blasts of almost half a ton of HE like it was nothing. I'd love to have a go in one.
I believe the california FD used them to create emergency firebreaks in forests also

Eldenfirefly wrote:
I wonder why they even exist in the first place.

Because space Jesus commands it. From any realistic point of view an equal investment in tanks will slaughter anyone foolish enough to waste resources on a vehicle with massive ground pressure and stability issues, zero ability to hide out of LOS, paper-thin armor, and extremely weak guns for its size. But in 40k space Jesus commands it, and "rule of cool" says that titans will appear on the battlefield. Just accept that titans are cool and don't try to think about it too much.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 Beersarius Drawl wrote:

 kastelen wrote:

 Snake Tortoise wrote:
I agree with the OP. Dense forest or jungle would be impassable. Particularly mountainous terrain would be no good. Most urban environments too, apart from wide, ground level streets

I agree with them not being very good in mountains, but titans could probably just walk through or over the forest.

Jungle and Forrest no worries.
Being in heavy industry myself, and seeing a D9 dozer (Weighing 48,990kg) not even blinking when strolling straight through mature pine Forrest, or buildings (Both concrete and steel)
A titan would be 3-4 times that weight and probably 10 times the horsepower would not even break stride walking through an average Forrest or Jungle.

and If one were thinking that a titan might "Slip" or "Trip" this would not happen either, because at a certain weight these machines are not really traversing what we see as the ground, they are actually driving of the clay underneath. - The only exception to this would be a walking/traversing on a Rock layer.

so Jungle, Forrest, Buildings it does not matter to a Titan. only some of the smaller knights would have issue with this.

Indeed. I'm a plant driver, Q'd on JCB light wheelies for work, which would probably be considered fairly small in plant terms, and even that can go through large trees fairly easily.

D9s are badass. I built a scale IDF version last year, and while looking through subject material for reference I saw and read accounts of them taking IED blasts of almost half a ton of HE like it was nothing. I'd love to have a go in one.
I believe the california FD used them to create emergency firebreaks in forests also

Yeah, the CDF & CALFire use all of the huge dozers and excavators available. last year with all the wildfires basically ever heavy construction company was donating the use of their machinery. All I can say is be thankful if you didnt get smoked for 3 weeks straight.

Back on topic.

Nothing like thousands of tons and a blade that's thicker than most tank armour(granted easily defeatable w shaped charge warheads).

Titans are battlefield superiority units, demoralizing to foes, inspiring to friendlies. Now whether they would work in actual reality is definitely up for debate.

 Peregrine wrote:

Eldenfirefly wrote:
I wonder why they even exist in the first place.

Because space Jesus commands it. From any realistic point of view an equal investment in tanks will slaughter anyone foolish enough to waste resources on a vehicle with massive ground pressure and stability issues, zero ability to hide out of LOS, paper-thin armor, and extremely weak guns for its size. But in 40k space Jesus commands it, and "rule of cool" says that titans will appear on the battlefield. Just accept that titans are cool and don't try to think about it too much.

Aren't Titans meant to be avatars of the machine god? So in a way they really do exist because space god demands it.

Robbert Ambrose wrote:
for me at least, the reason why Titans or any other kind of huge bipedal walker never made sense to me is their extreme vulnerability to aerial attack.

Actually they're not so vulnerable - common flyers maybe dime a dozen cheap compared to Titan but Titan's void-shields and state of art targeting systems make them pretty dangerous prey to hunt - one capable of literally swatting entire squadrons of assault craft while receiving no lasting damage. In terms of firepower and defenses they're in league of their own (and those abilities are well-rounded unlike titanhunter superheavies or Ordinatuses(sp?) ).
Knights OTOH look like fodder for in-universe* proper aerial attack - but most of 'em are still deadly enough and protected enough to kill lone flight of aircraft and survive - if they're not otherwise engaged and given enough warning of course.

* - Where most of accurate weaponry is NOT BVR while nuke equivalents used rarely if ever. In RW killing things like that Titans would still required defense-saturating salvos of current air-launched shipkiller missiles/heavy smart ordnance , preferable with nukes.

Aren't titans also built and used on worlds which have wildlife of comparable size to titans - such as those worlds that have huge dinosaurs that a certain Eldar subfaction rides into war.

If your cattle is the size of a skyscraper chances are your quadbike just isn't going to cut it when it comes to herding!

 Overread wrote:
Aren't titans also built and used on worlds which have wildlife of comparable size to titans - such as those worlds that have huge dinosaurs that a certain Eldar subfaction rides into war.

If your cattle is the size of a skyscraper chances are your quadbike just isn't going to cut it when it comes to herding!

That's Imperial Knights you're thinking about, Titans are built on Forge Worlds which are barren wastelands more often than not.

chyron wrote:

Robbert Ambrose wrote:
for me at least, the reason why Titans or any other kind of huge bipedal walker never made sense to me is their extreme vulnerability to aerial attack.

Actually they're not so vulnerable - common flyers maybe dime a dozen cheap compared to Titan but Titan's void-shields and state of art targeting systems make them pretty dangerous prey to hunt - one capable of literally swatting entire squadrons of assault craft while receiving no lasting damage. In terms of firepower and defenses they're in league of their own (and those abilities are well-rounded unlike titanhunter superheavies or Ordinatuses(sp?) ).
Knights OTOH look like fodder for in-universe* proper aerial attack - but most of 'em are still deadly enough and protected enough to kill lone flight of aircraft and survive - if they're not otherwise engaged and given enough warning of course.

* - Where most of accurate weaponry is NOT BVR while nuke equivalents used rarely if ever. In RW killing things like that Titans would still required defense-saturating salvos of current air-launched shipkiller missiles/heavy smart ordnance , preferable with nukes.

Wierdly from some perspectives the void shields are a big part of it. Void shielding explains why the massive signature and obvious weak points of a titan are less of an issue (you can't shoot the head/knees/whatever without collapsing the shields first, and battle-strength shields can take a literally infinite amount of weaker weapons fire*, avoiding the attrition issue.

Thing is, the titan is/was the smallest thing capable of mounting void shields** - which is why knights have the more pilot-skill intensive ion shield. Yes, there are emplaced shield generators but they're connected to a planetary power network.





* in original Epic: Titan Legions, attacks without a -1 save modifier or better (basically anything short of missile launchers) couldn't collapse void shields, whilst in the adeptus titanicus reboot, void shield saves auto-pass for strength 3 or less (equivalent to the avenger gatling cannon)

** Aside from the new primaris tank because established in-universe rules do not apply to Belisarius Cawl.

There is a nice bit in a Imperial Armour book where they use a pair of Warhounds in open terrain as a unstopable speahead. They outrange the Tau forces and are relatively quick plud well supported by Astartes (Skitarii were not models and seldom talked about)

They are truely devestating until the Tau field a dedicated unit they developed after previously being slaughtered by Titans.

I like that Titans are primarily an expression of religious worship, in that they represent the apotheosis of the Mechanicum's notion of Oneness with the Machine-God. Religious considerations will always trump practical ones, particularly in the context of a religiously motivated war.

The second thing is that they exist in a universe of suspensors, force fields, and so on. Why would they sink into the ground at all if most of their mass is being held up through suspensors and anti-gravity? I like to think of them as being like little space-shields specialized for operations close to the surface of a planet. It's the drop-ships that irk me, although I can see that if they didn't have weaknesses then the question would be why have anything else? Aside from the notion of Kill-Teams of Astartes or Secutarii or what-have-you racing through a Forge Complex trying to prevent the crews from reaching their Titans and stomping them and their invasion force into paste.

Tyran wrote:
Because Titans are the masters of their niche.

Yes they have a lot of drawbacks, but you don't want to be stuck in an open field facing an enemy titan without one yourself.

Unless you are Tau. Then you call in a squadron of AX -0-1 Tiger Sharks and destroy the priceless Titan with a plane made of spare parts from other platforms.

 Nurglitch wrote:
The second thing is that they exist in a universe of suspensors, force fields, and so on. Why would they sink into the ground at all if most of their mass is being held up through suspensors and anti-gravity?

All of these things can be even more effective when used on a tank instead.

walkers are generally, in most settings that have them fluffed as being more stable in rough terrain.

 EmpNortonII wrote:

Tyran wrote:
Because Titans are the masters of their niche.

Yes they have a lot of drawbacks, but you don't want to be stuck in an open field facing an enemy titan without one yourself.

Unless you are Tau. Then you call in a squadron of AX -0-1 Tiger Sharks and destroy the priceless Titan with a plane made of spare parts from other platforms.

Not anymore you don't. Now you call in your Titans because flyer squadrons aren't big centrepieces.

 Overread wrote:
I dunno chainsaws tend to go through flesh like - well - a hot knife through melted butter!

Yeah, and I could very easily kill someone with my microwave oven. Just let me raise it above my head and go for a quick hit on the head, and just with the weight of that thing, some skull would burst open.
Not a good weapon though.
Chainsaw could definitely kill you but make for terrible weapons.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I dunno chainsaws tend to go through flesh like - well - a hot knife through melted butter!

Yeah, and I could very easily kill someone with my microwave oven. Just let me raise it above my head and go for a quick hit on the head, and just with the weight of that thing, some skull would burst open.
Not a good weapon though.
Chainsaw could definitely kill you but make for terrible weapons.

Agreed. but they look cool.

Probably been said, but most of the time scale is all out of wack on 40k tabletop anyway.

So actually the titans are not that big. The very small buildings we usually use on the tabletop are puny. Real Manufactorums would be vast, and Hive cities are reported to be beyond our imagination in scale. So a giant robot just aint that big. And as has been pointed out the areas around, the areas around cities can and is often open ground. The biggest titans are reported about 60 metres to maybe 100 metres. The Eiffel Tower is 300 metres tall, so think about it, you could easily have a couple Emperor Titans loafing around the park landscape around Paris, you could fit approx. 500 shoulder to shoulder in Central Park. And that thing is stupid big, so warhound size beasties could probably run around in Central Park quite happily. They would even be able to easily walk down the streets of most cities in our world. So scale is a factor here, people think of titans as building sized, yes they are building sized, but we are talking small buildings here and the Imperium would have huge and vast buildings with boulevards equally as big.

What are they used for?

To separate the credulous from their credits.

Vigilus Ablaze specifically stated that due to the massive amounts of tunnels and sewers under the continent-cities that the weight of the titans would collapse the streets and they would sink.

It was just to hazardous for the Titans to enter the cities.

Hmm... I don't have the time to calc it, but I wonder what the required bearing pressure for a warhound is compared to a bin lorry

There is also a psychological factor to think about. As stated earlier, Titans are quite often the avatars of a race's Gods (namely the mechanicum and the Orks). They're big, loud and scary for anyone who has to face one down. Using titans to support a major push would serve multiple roles. Heavy fire support, giving the enemy a more tempting target and, mostly importantly, sapping the enemy's morale while boosting your allies. No one wants to fight a titan, everyone wants one by their side.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:
The second thing is that they exist in a universe of suspensors, force fields, and so on. Why would they sink into the ground at all if most of their mass is being held up through suspensors and anti-gravity?

All of these things can be even more effective when used on a tank instead.

Indeed. I like to think that the thing about Titans is not that they're practical, but they're wildly impractical. So there's the achievement of making something so wildly impractical be not only useful but effective is a testament to the Mechanicum's unity with the Machine-God. I mean of course all the technologies used to make them walk around like they're not giant liabilities would work better on other platforms, but that's not the point. The point is to use those technologies in the religiously appropriate way. Using stuff merely because it was effective and convenient is what got humanity into the Dark Age of Technology, and hence into Old Night.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:
The second thing is that they exist in a universe of suspensors, force fields, and so on. Why would they sink into the ground at all if most of their mass is being held up through suspensors and anti-gravity?

All of these things can be even more effective when used on a tank instead.

This is true, but the AM doesn't know how to do that either.

Your view is best expressed in Tau super heavy flyers, Eldar super heavies, or of course Necron supers from EPIPC (nothing say I love you like shooting part of a star at someone).

 Flinty wrote:
Hmm... I don't have the time to calc it, but I wonder what the required bearing pressure for a warhound is compared to a bin lorry

Ah-ha. I found it.

Back in the day I did some random rough calcs on bearing pressures required to walk on some earth type surfaces.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/523743.page#5560971

For a war hound, a foot area of about 50sq.m is enough for it.to.walk on silt, which is pretty squishy.

According to wikipedia an abrams also.exerts a ground pressure of about 100kN/square.m, or about the carrying capacity of.silt, which seems reasonable as it's designed to move over soft ground.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_pressure

Apparently Abrams tracks have a contact area of about 13sq.m, so in the same.order of magnitude as a war hound foot.

Allowing for dynamic impact while it runs, etc it.might need a bigger footprint to reduce the pressures sufficiently to match a relatively static HGV or tank. What I'm trying to say is that the hive must have no kind of heavy vehicle driving on any of the roads...

Shock and Awe.

Yes. The major players all have Titans or rough equivalents. Yet such creations are still somewhat rare. Even Orks don’t always have Gargants - it takes a Waaagh of some size to start producing those.

Drop a couple of Battle Titans on a planet with little by way of an answer to them, and your opponent is pretty much done. They’re unlikely to have enough help materiel to do enough damage to the Titans before they’ve ripped the heart out of your city or stoutest defence. And if they are able to assemble enough materiel to handle Titans? That’s a significant drain on the rest of your forces.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Shock and Awe.

Yes. The major players all have Titans or rough equivalents. Yet such creations are still somewhat rare. Even Orks don’t always have Gargants - it takes a Waaagh of some size to start producing those.

Drop a couple of Battle Titans on a planet with little by way of an answer to them, and your opponent is pretty much done. They’re unlikely to have enough help materiel to do enough damage to the Titans before they’ve ripped the heart out of your city or stoutest defence. And if they are able to assemble enough materiel to handle Titans? That’s a significant drain on the rest of your forces.

Alternatively, a couple of super heavies or bog standard artillery and tank companies. When all you have are earthshakers, everything is just a grid coordinate...

EDIT: thats the real advantage. Eldar and IM/Chaos titans have void shields or holofields and structural strength that allows them to take multiple hits. Efficiency wise they suck, but an opponent able to field them is bringing substantial force projection to the field.

 Snake Tortoise wrote:
I agree with the OP. Dense forest or jungle would be impassable. Particularly mountainous terrain would be no good. Most urban environments too, apart from wide, ground level streets

Urban enviroment isn't that much of a trouble when you have weapons that can level city blocks and have basically no ammunition worries.

Provided you don't mind leveling entire city the city isn't much of a protection. There won't BE buildings once titans have their way.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Shock and Awe.

Yes. The major players all have Titans or rough equivalents. Yet such creations are still somewhat rare. Even Orks don’t always have Gargants - it takes a Waaagh of some size to start producing those.

Drop a couple of Battle Titans on a planet with little by way of an answer to them, and your opponent is pretty much done. They’re unlikely to have enough help materiel to do enough damage to the Titans before they’ve ripped the heart out of your city or stoutest defence. And if they are able to assemble enough materiel to handle Titans? That’s a significant drain on the rest of your forces.

Alternatively, a couple of super heavies or bog standard artillery and tank companies. When all you have are earthshakers, everything is just a grid coordinate...

EDIT: thats the real advantage. Eldar and IM/Chaos titans have void shields or holofields and structural strength that allows them to take multiple hits. Efficiency wise they suck, but an opponent able to field them is bringing substantial force projection to the field.

In 2nd edition Epic, a Titan was still dead if the player acted as if they were invulnerable gods of the battlefield and tried just charging them straight towards a conventional enemy force. It didn't take that much concentrated fire either from conventional units either. Dedicated anti-Titan superheavies were not truly required, as it was possible to smother them under sheer number of shots from Earthshakers, lascannons, or the Ork/Eldar equivalents.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I dunno chainsaws tend to go through flesh like - well - a hot knife through melted butter!

Yeah, and I could very easily kill someone with my microwave oven. Just let me raise it above my head and go for a quick hit on the head, and just with the weight of that thing, some skull would burst open.
Not a good weapon though.
Chainsaw could definitely kill you but make for terrible weapons.

Just to point out. . .a sword of any type is likely a better tool for killing than a microwave. A chainsaw is probably a better tool for cutting flesh than a microwave as well.

Probably a chainsword is very useful for fighting Orks in cc, as they're not the most armored of foes, and are noted for requiring extreme wounds to take down. A weaponized chainsaw makes at least some sense.

I just assume that 40k (along with Gundam, Macross, etc, etc) is a fantastical alternate universe where giant robots actually work.

Anyway, Space Marine legions were used to capture worlds. Titan legions were used to destroy them.

Same thing as War Elephants power prestge shock & awe. Which is effectuve on the battlefield. Victory is about who breaks first.

I hate to say "a wizard did it", but Titans for orks, chaos and imperium are loci of faith. I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest some warp shenanigans make them more effective than they should be.

Snake Tortoise wrote: Most urban environments too, apart from wide, ground level streets

What's your source on road allowances and city-planning in the grim darkness of the far future?

A Titan being unsuited to a city does not mean it is unsuited to all cities.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I dunno chainsaws tend to go through flesh like - well - a hot knife through melted butter!

Yeah, and I could very easily kill someone with my microwave oven. Just let me raise it above my head and go for a quick hit on the head, and just with the weight of that thing, some skull would burst open.
Not a good weapon though.
Chainsaw could definitely kill you but make for terrible weapons.

Just to point out. . .a sword of any type is likely a better tool for killing than a microwave. A chainsaw is probably a better tool for cutting flesh than a microwave as well.

Probably a chainsword is very useful for fighting Orks in cc, as they're not the most armored of foes, and are noted for requiring extreme wounds to take down. A weaponized chainsaw makes at least some sense.

They probably work well against rebel forces as well. It's probably scary to watch a giant chainsaw your mate in half.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

Snake Tortoise wrote: Most urban environments too, apart from wide, ground level streets

What's your source on road allowances and city-planning in the grim darkness of the far future?

A Titan being unsuited to a city does not mean it is unsuited to all cities.

I'm pretty sure that titans dont care about urban terrain, as they would just walk through buildings.

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:

Snake Tortoise wrote: Most urban environments too, apart from wide, ground level streets

What's your source on road allowances and city-planning in the grim darkness of the far future?

A Titan being unsuited to a city does not mean it is unsuited to all cities.

I'm pretty sure that titans dont care about urban terrain, as they would just walk through buildings.

The buildings of any major city are bigger than the stated sizes for most Titans. Simply walking through them is not a great option, especially since lots of urban building have sub-levels. Any Titan trying to walk through a building could just wind up falling into a hole and then buried in rubble.

 Insectum7 wrote:

The buildings of any major city are bigger than the stated sizes for most Titans. Simply walking through them is not a great option, especially since lots of urban building have sub-levels. Any Titan trying to walk through a building could just wind up falling into a hole and then buried in rubble.

That's why they don't walk over them. They level them.

Person above said it well. Marines are used to conquer world. Titans to destroy them. When you utilize them you dont' care about collateral casualties. In HH Dorn sent basically all the titans to Beta Garmon to fight Horus titans THERE rather than earth precisely because had they fought on earth there would not be much LEFT of earth to the winner.

We are destroyer of worlds is accurate statement for titans. They don't conquer worlds. They flatten them.

tneva82 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

The buildings of any major city are bigger than the stated sizes for most Titans. Simply walking through them is not a great option, especially since lots of urban building have sub-levels. Any Titan trying to walk through a building could just wind up falling into a hole and then buried in rubble.

That's why they don't walk over them. They level them.

Person above said it well. Marines are used to conquer world. Titans to destroy them. When you utilize them you dont' care about collateral casualties. In HH Dorn sent basically all the titans to Beta Garmon to fight Horus titans THERE rather than earth precisely because had they fought on earth there would not be much LEFT of earth to the winner.

We are destroyer of worlds is accurate statement for titans. They don't conquer worlds. They flatten them.

My head canon for games fought on 'Planet Bowling Ball' is that the battles are being fought on the site of a previous Titan encounter!

nareik wrote:
I hate to say "a wizard did it", but Titans for orks, chaos and imperium are loci of faith. I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest some warp shenanigans make them more effective than they should be.

It's always worth remember that reality in Warhammer isn't quite as solid and un-flexible as reality in reality.

tneva82 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

The buildings of any major city are bigger than the stated sizes for most Titans. Simply walking through them is not a great option, especially since lots of urban building have sub-levels. Any Titan trying to walk through a building could just wind up falling into a hole and then buried in rubble.

That's why they don't walk over them. They level them.

Person above said it well. Marines are used to conquer world. Titans to destroy them. When you utilize them you dont' care about collateral casualties. In HH Dorn sent basically all the titans to Beta Garmon to fight Horus titans THERE rather than earth precisely because had they fought on earth there would not be much LEFT of earth to the winner.

We are destroyer of worlds is accurate statement for titans. They don't conquer worlds. They flatten them.

The argument against that is that you can just bombard a planet from orbit if you don't care about collateral damage.

Titans need a strategic niche that is not simply leveling everything. For example, maybe they are siege-breakers for circumstances where a target can't be bombarded. Perhaps they can pass through city defense fields, and because they're not aircraft, can duck the large scale anti-air fire that would normally be used against planetary landing craft. Hoth scenario type stuff.

Well they are taller than most infantry and tanks and have a horrendously complicated means of locomotion... so they are like helicopter gunships. That can only stay at one level. And move quite slowly. What were we talking about again?

 Flinty wrote:
Well they are taller than most infantry and tanks and have a horrendously complicated means of locomotion... so they are like helicopter gunships. That can only stay at one level. And move quite slowly. What were we talking about again?

You must know some really tall dudes......

Hey, I'm just not ruling anything out, ok?

The one time I could see a platform like a Titan maybe somewhat making sense is that of a mobile anti-orbital defense gun. Build a weapons platform capable of mounting weapons big enough to at least be a threat to smaller ships or landing craft, then make it mobile so that they can't just throw rocks at it from across the solar system.

The only thing I can think of where a Titan is useful is a planet where you need to destroy a lot of stuff but you don't have orbital superiority. But then with the resources needed to make a Titan you could probably make enough ships to just take control of orbit.

 dementedwombatusa wrote:
The one time I could see a platform like a Titan maybe somewhat making sense is that of a mobile anti-orbital defense gun. Build a weapons platform capable of mounting weapons big enough to at least be a threat to smaller ships or landing craft, then make it mobile so that they can't just throw rocks at it from across the solar system.

But that design idea leads to putting tracks on it and building a proper tank. Walking makes no sense except as "space Jesus said so".

Depends on the terrain. A walker will be able to navigate more landscapes, especially if we start imagining suspensors to help stabilize and alleviaye some ground pressure issues. Since you dont know where/what worlds the Titans need to be deployed on, walking might be more desireable.

They have giant tanks anyways, too. Like the Capitol Imperialis.

 Insectum7 wrote:
A walker will be able to navigate more landscapes

Not likely. Ground pressure is going to be immense relative to a tank, and a titan has horrifying stability issues that a tank doesn't worry about. The tank is actually going to be the better platform in rough terrain.

especially if we start imagining suspensors to help stabilize and alleviaye some ground pressure issues.

Then you build a hover tank and don't bother with legs/tracks/whatever at all.

Two legs may have stability problems, but legs actually have advantages in some terrain.

IRL DARPA is experimenting with devices to carry equipment in rough terrain. These devices use legs. Wheels able to cross logs etc would be too big.

Legs also don't dig themselves deeper in soft terrain (mud and sand etc)

Titan pilots like to hook up a sound player to the titans PA system and play fart effects thru them at full volume. It's really bad for the enemy morale and gives your allies some good laughs.

pm713 wrote:
The only thing I can think of where a Titan is useful is a planet where you need to destroy a lot of stuff but you don't have orbital superiority. But then with the resources needed to make a Titan you could probably make enough ships to just take control of orbit.

And if you don't have orbital superiority they just kill your giant titan from orbit.

 Peregrine wrote:

 dementedwombatusa wrote:
The one time I could see a platform like a Titan maybe somewhat making sense is that of a mobile anti-orbital defense gun. Build a weapons platform capable of mounting weapons big enough to at least be a threat to smaller ships or landing craft, then make it mobile so that they can't just throw rocks at it from across the solar system.

But that design idea leads to putting tracks on it and building a proper tank. Walking makes no sense except as "space Jesus said so".

I'm not saying you're wrong. I pretty much completely agree. I'm just trying to give the best explanation I can think of why something like a Titan would be a useful weapon.

Titans are "shock and awe" weapons. Let's face it, we can sit ere and say they're stupid and foolish and a bad design and make no sense yadda yadda yadda all we want and be technically right.

But if a few ever landed on earth people would be stunned, shocked, awed, etc.

They are symbols, they are objects of worship, focal points for moral, etc. The sight of them marching towards your city, visible from many miles away, hearing the thunder of their footsteps, feeling the ground shake as they advanced, yeah, it's gonna royally xxxx with your morale big time if you're the enemy. It's gonna raise your morale if you're friendly forces.

They're symbols of might and capability, the very fact peolle have the tech and industry to build one says a xxxxton about their power.

pm713 wrote:

 EmpNortonII wrote:

Tyran wrote:
Because Titans are the masters of their niche.

Yes they have a lot of drawbacks, but you don't want to be stuck in an open field facing an enemy titan without one yourself.

Unless you are Tau. Then you call in a squadron of AX -0-1 Tiger Sharks and destroy the priceless Titan with a plane made of spare parts from other platforms.

Not anymore you don't. Now you call in your Titans because flyer squadrons aren't big centrepieces.

Ugh. I'll never forgive GW for what they did to the fluff of the Tau.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
.

They're symbols of might and capability, the very fact peolle have the tech and industry to build one says a xxxxton about their power.

Right until a sinkhole opens up under one of its feet and it is stuck on its side and has to be scuttled. Then it becomes a testament to the idiocy of the engineers.

Yeeeeaah, I kinda have the feeling the admech has developed ground penetrating sensors to detect sinkholes and such.

Just slap a few anti-grav generators on them and make the whole ground pressure irrelevant.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
Titan pilots like to hook up a sound player to the titans PA system and play fart effects thru them at full volume. It's really bad for the enemy morale and gives your allies some good laughs.

You I like.

 cole1114 wrote:
There's also scenarios where even if the Imperium wants to preserve a city, they know they're gonna have to mess it up to protect it. Stuff like Helsreach where they had imperators wandering the streets fighting Gargants, or in Betrayer where they had reavers fighting warhounds without any visibility in a city covered in smoke and ash.

Remember, this is the same universe where ground supremacy > air supremacy because of the usefulness of void shields and anti-air. It's why Horus had to take Beta-Garmon in order to attack Terra, they couldn't just go past it since they needed to warp in in-system which would leave them vulnerable to attacks launched from the planet. Solution? Titans! Thousands of them!

Well, imperium sent their titans in so that they would mutually annihilate them self. Khan asks Angel wouldn't all those titans be better off defending Terra, and Angel basically tells him look at destruction they wreak around them, they better annihilate them self mutually as much as possible here away from throne world...

Titans are a way of sayjng 'My dick is bigger than yours. "

Still going on about these things being far bigger than they actually are, and not taking in to account any development in materials over thousands of years. I know that little development happened in the later part of the 40k universe, but there are 10's of thousands of years of development before it all collapsed. We have far larger machines today that the titans and they are equally as questionable. Admittedly we have moved away from huge batttleships, but take an aircraft carrier. 300+ metres long est. 100,000 tons. Nasa crawler 40-ish metres square and weighing in at nearly 3000 tons. We build huge stuff now, some of it is big for a reason, some is just for looks, cruise ships 300= metres long with a capacity of 6000 people. In 300BC we were building siege towers like the Helepolis, the largest siege tower ever made. With iron plating on three sides and three catapults, 65 feet wide, 130 feet tall, and weighing 160 tons.

Titans are not that ridiculous, and as has been said, the sight of it would be just awe. The simple factor of raising your line of sight above everything on the ground and your guns automatically having height advantage alone are not to be scoffed at either.

Movement would be an issue, certainly nothing like the silly running around in Pacific Rim, but walking would be plausible.

I think there is a good case for having them, but I am playing devils advocate, because I really don't think they are that viable. Cost is not an issue, size is not an issue, it just comes down to manoeuvrability. If you are relatively immobile your are done for in any combat situation. Walking about in an urban situation is plausible, and a defensive line surrounding a city state is viable, and would do wonders for moral. And in the same way, seeing a line of them advancing toward a city, something like in ancient times, war elephants advancing, would be scary as hell. But they would have to be able to soak up an awful lot of punishment.

P.S. on the weight relationship thing, I know years ago I had a chart for D&D stuff, but a thought for you. A 5ft person weighs approx 100lbs, a 6ft person 180lbs, and 6ft 8" 220lbs, and of course you have someone like the Mountain 400lbs, height and weight are not simple calculations, it is an exponential curve.

P.P.S. I worked out long ago that according to the BMI charts I am not over weight, I am under height, I should be 7'6".

Eldenfirefly wrote:
What exactly are Titans used for?

I read in Vigilus Ablaze that titans were ill suited to fight in the dense city hab blocksthere. But you can't always choose to have an enemy that is so obliging it would fight you on the nice flat ground of your own choosing. It seems to me that Titans seem to function as a very limited long range bombardment role and that's about it. Many stories I have read about titans in action have been on nice flat desert or barren land.

They aren't used in space boarding actions. They can't be used in cities.They are not flyers. Seriously, it just seems to me that their role is so limited I wonder why they even exist in the first place. Why spend so much resources building such massive titans who end up being only able to operate in rather limited combat theaters of wars.

They aren't suited to fight in cities but they do it all the time. They absolutely can be used in cities but just like a tank it isn't ideal for them.

 Camkierhi wrote:
Still going on about these things being far bigger than they actually are, and not taking in to account any development in materials over thousands of years. I know that little development happened in the later part of the 40k universe, but there are 10's of thousands of years of development before it all collapsed. We have far larger machines today that the titans and they are equally as questionable. Admittedly we have moved away from huge batttleships, but take an aircraft carrier. 300+ metres long est. 100,000 tons. Nasa crawler 40-ish metres square and weighing in at nearly 3000 tons. We build huge stuff now, some of it is big for a reason, some is just for looks, cruise ships 300= metres long with a capacity of 6000 people. In 300BC we were building siege towers like the Helepolis, the largest siege tower ever made. With iron plating on three sides and three catapults, 65 feet wide, 130 feet tall, and weighing 160 tons.

Titans are not that ridiculous, and as has been said, the sight of it would be just awe. The simple factor of raising your line of sight above everything on the ground and your guns automatically having height advantage alone are not to be scoffed at either.

Movement would be an issue, certainly nothing like the silly running around in Pacific Rim, but walking would be plausible.

I think there is a good case for having them, but I am playing devils advocate, because I really don't think they are that viable. Cost is not an issue, size is not an issue, it just comes down to manoeuvrability. If you are relatively immobile your are done for in any combat situation. Walking about in an urban situation is plausible, and a defensive line surrounding a city state is viable, and would do wonders for moral. And in the same way, seeing a line of them advancing toward a city, something like in ancient times, war elephants advancing, would be scary as hell. But they would have to be able to soak up an awful lot of punishment.

P.S. on the weight relationship thing, I know years ago I had a chart for D&D stuff, but a thought for you. A 5ft person weighs approx 100lbs, a 6ft person 180lbs, and 6ft 8" 220lbs, and of course you have someone like the Mountain 400lbs, height and weight are not simple calculations, it is an exponential curve.

P.P.S. I worked out long ago that according to the BMI charts I am not over weight, I am under height, I should be 7'6".

The mountain is huge, I'm 6'8" & 260ish lbs(granted I look the same @290 as I do 240)and when I see another person my height or taller they're either super skinny or gigantic.

Suspensors and gyrostabilized bipedal motion is a pretty decent way to get around, after all that's kinda what human locomotion uses.

 Camkierhi wrote:
not taking in to account any development in materials over thousands of years

We don't need to account for materials because the flaws with titans are issues of geometry. A titan will always have more surface area than a tank with comparable internal volume, which means that an equal mass of armor will be much thinner and give much less protection to the titan. A titan will always have a smaller surface area in contact with the ground and will always have the additional force of the foot impacting the ground with every step, so it will always be more vulnerable to soft ground. A titan will always have its center of gravity significantly higher up and require a much smaller rotation angle to put that center of gravity outside of its footprint and fall over. Any materials improvements that can help a titan will also help a conventional tank, and the tank will always win at everything except being a walking icon to space Jesus.

and as has been said, the sight of it would be just awe

Until a Tigershark pilot sees that nice easy target and puts a fatal railgun salvo through it. Then your icon to space Jesus becomes a burning wreck and the only awe is at the enemies that smashed it.

The simple factor of raising your line of sight above everything on the ground and your guns automatically having height advantage alone are not to be scoffed at either.

Err, no. Success in combat is about keeping a low profile and staying out of sight. A tall target that stands out from every possible direction is an easy target, and any advantage in gun elevation is negated by the fact that the enemy guns now have line of sight for return fire.

I thought success in combat was killing the other guy while not dying? So being in something with starship level shielding that annihilates entire tank squadrons is pretty helpful for that.

I know Titans aren't practical but they aren't THAT bad.

pm713 wrote:
I thought success in combat was killing the other guy while not dying? So being in something with starship level shielding that annihilates entire tank squadrons is pretty helpful for that.

I know Titans aren't practical but they aren't THAT bad.

"Aren't that bad", If you have a titan and your enemy doesn't then you are pretty much winning, that's what I've learnt from the lore and I've read a hell of a lot of the lore. Titans can win wars by simply having them I don't know what the hell the OP is talking about.

pm713 wrote:
I thought success in combat was killing the other guy while not dying? So being in something with starship level shielding that annihilates entire tank squadrons is pretty helpful for that.

I know Titans aren't practical but they aren't THAT bad.

Until the other side has a tank with starship level shielding that annihilates entire titan squadrons, because the tank is not an idiotic unstable walker with much worse armor and firepower than a tank of equal mass.

I get the feeling your not keen on Titan's Peregrine!

Tbh I agree 100%.

Still like the idea though. Giant killy robots are cool. Personally I think the Ork gargants are more viable. Huge tracked icons to your chosen deity with a few silly big guns strapped to it works for me. Walking giant machines just not right.

But if we want everything to be practical and fit our universe, maybe sci-fi is not the best setting for your toy soldiers.

 Peregrine wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I thought success in combat was killing the other guy while not dying? So being in something with starship level shielding that annihilates entire tank squadrons is pretty helpful for that.

I know Titans aren't practical but they aren't THAT bad.

Until the other side has a tank with starship level shielding that annihilates entire titan squadrons, because the tank is not an idiotic unstable walker with much worse armor and firepower than a tank of equal mass.

A titans weapons have great range and the titan, standing taller, let's them fire out to further range than a low platform like a tank. Titans can step over obstacles that could stop a huge tracked vehicle. Also titans have pilots controlling them via mind impulse interface that let's them operate it like their own bodies making them relatively agile for such huge constructs. A human pilot might not be able to interface with a tracked vehicle and operate it like they operate their bodies.

 Peregrine wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I thought success in combat was killing the other guy while not dying? So being in something with starship level shielding that annihilates entire tank squadrons is pretty helpful for that.

I know Titans aren't practical but they aren't THAT bad.

Until the other side has a tank with starship level shielding that annihilates entire titan squadrons, because the tank is not an idiotic unstable walker with much worse armor and firepower than a tank of equal mass.

You just failed to sum up a titan, tanks are nothing to a titan in the lore, even shadowswords etc. They aren't even in the same ball park. Show me an instance, just one in the lore where a tank destroys a city, I can give you many of a titan. I mean where is everyone getting their info thinking titans are so under-powered and weak... Even in the game they are insanely cheesy and the lore they are even more cheesy.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
You just failed to sum up a titan, tanks are nothing to a titan in the lore, even shadowswords etc. They aren't even in the same ball park. Show me an instance, just one in the lore where a tank destroys a city, I can give you many of a titan. I mean where is everyone getting their info thinking titans are so under-powered and weak... Even in the game they are insanely cheesy and the lore they are even more cheesy.

I'm talking about a hypothetical titan-equivalent tank that would exist if, instead of walking shines to space Jesus, the Imperium made practical war machines. Obviously none of the canon tanks do it because the Imperium didn't build anything big enough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
A titans weapons have great range and the titan, standing taller, let's them fire out to further range than a low platform like a tank.

A tank with those same weapons has the same range, except it also has the ability to use terrain for protection instead of being a giant exposed target for everything on the battlefield. In a tank vs. titan duel the tanks win a massacre.

Titans can step over obstacles that could stop a huge tracked vehicle.

Not easily. A titan would actually have very little ability to step over obstacles without losing its balance and falling over. And much of what a titan could step over is probably small enough that a tank could just smash through it.

Also titans have pilots controlling them via mind impulse interface that let's them operate it like their own bodies making them relatively agile for such huge constructs. A human pilot might not be able to interface with a tracked vehicle and operate it like they operate their bodies.

A titan's movement is nothing like a human's, so I don't see how this applies. And agility is about physical shape, how much force the driving hydraulics can exert, etc, not how comfortable the driver feels. All the comfort in the world won't do much if the titan is not physically capable of moving like you want it to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Camkierhi wrote:
But if we want everything to be practical and fit our universe, maybe sci-fi is not the best setting for your toy soldiers.

You're kind of missing the point here. Titans are ing stupid and this is a good thing. The Imperium is a totalitarian theocracy run by suicidal lunatics, not a rational state making pragmatic choices to win wars. It is 100% appropriate that they pour immense amounts of priceless lost-tech resources into building giant impractical walking shrines to space Jesus instead of practical weapons that would be better on the battlefield. But we can recognize from an outside point of view that titans are another example of the Imperium's stupidity and ignorance, even if we acknowledge that they are cool and thematically exactly what the Imperium would build.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
You just failed to sum up a titan, tanks are nothing to a titan in the lore, even shadowswords etc. They aren't even in the same ball park. Show me an instance, just one in the lore where a tank destroys a city, I can give you many of a titan. I mean where is everyone getting their info thinking titans are so under-powered and weak... Even in the game they are insanely cheesy and the lore they are even more cheesy.

I'm talking about a hypothetical titan-equivalent tank that would exist if, instead of walking shines to space Jesus, the Imperium made practical war machines. Obviously none of the canon tanks do it because the Imperium didn't build anything big enough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
A titans weapons have great range and the titan, standing taller, let's them fire out to further range than a low platform like a tank.

A tank with those same weapons has the same range, except it also has the ability to use terrain for protection instead of being a giant exposed target for everything on the battlefield. In a tank vs. titan duel the tanks win a massacre.

Titans can step over obstacles that could stop a huge tracked vehicle.

Not easily. A titan would actually have very little ability to step over obstacles without losing its balance and falling over. And much of what a titan could step over is probably small enough that a tank could just smash through it.

Also titans have pilots controlling them via mind impulse interface that let's them operate it like their own bodies making them relatively agile for such huge constructs. A human pilot might not be able to interface with a tracked vehicle and operate it like they operate their bodies.

A titan's movement is nothing like a human's, so I don't see how this applies. And agility is about physical shape, how much force the driving hydraulics can exert, etc, not how comfortable the driver feels. All the comfort in the world won't do much if the titan is not physically capable of moving like you want it to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Camkierhi wrote:
But if we want everything to be practical and fit our universe, maybe sci-fi is not the best setting for your toy soldiers.

You're kind of missing the point here. Titans are ing stupid and this is a good thing. The Imperium is a totalitarian theocracy run by suicidal lunatics, not a rational state making pragmatic choices to win wars. It is 100% appropriate that they pour immense amounts of priceless lost-tech resources into building giant impractical walking shrines to space Jesus instead of practical weapons that would be better on the battlefield. But we can recognize from an outside point of view that titans are another example of the Imperium's stupidity and ignorance, even if we acknowledge that they are cool and thematically exactly what the Imperium would build.

Ah I see, though you couldn't really have one. The reason why Titans do so well is their height, they can have any weaponry. A tank can only have a main cannon or equivalent, any others are smaller arms like lascannon sponsons. I don't think you could ever have a tank that has the same firepower. Plus if you made the tank bigger to accommodate extra weaponry there far more problems with it traversing terrain.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
You just failed to sum up a titan, tanks are nothing to a titan in the lore, even shadowswords etc. They aren't even in the same ball park. Show me an instance, just one in the lore where a tank destroys a city, I can give you many of a titan. I mean where is everyone getting their info thinking titans are so under-powered and weak... Even in the game they are insanely cheesy and the lore they are even more cheesy.

I'm talking about a hypothetical titan-equivalent tank that would exist if, instead of walking shines to space Jesus, the Imperium made practical war machines. Obviously none of the canon tanks do it because the Imperium didn't build anything big enough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
A titans weapons have great range and the titan, standing taller, let's them fire out to further range than a low platform like a tank.

A tank with those same weapons has the same range, except it also has the ability to use terrain for protection instead of being a giant exposed target for everything on the battlefield. In a tank vs. titan duel the tanks win a massacre.

Titans can step over obstacles that could stop a huge tracked vehicle.

Not easily. A titan would actually have very little ability to step over obstacles without losing its balance and falling over. And much of what a titan could step over is probably small enough that a tank could just smash through it.

Also titans have pilots controlling them via mind impulse interface that let's them operate it like their own bodies making them relatively agile for such huge constructs. A human pilot might not be able to interface with a tracked vehicle and operate it like they operate their bodies.

A titan's movement is nothing like a human's, so I don't see how this applies. And agility is about physical shape, how much force the driving hydraulics can exert, etc, not how comfortable the driver feels. All the comfort in the world won't do much if the titan is not physically capable of moving like you want it to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Camkierhi wrote:
But if we want everything to be practical and fit our universe, maybe sci-fi is not the best setting for your toy soldiers.

You're kind of missing the point here. Titans are ing stupid and this is a good thing. The Imperium is a totalitarian theocracy run by suicidal lunatics, not a rational state making pragmatic choices to win wars. It is 100% appropriate that they pour immense amounts of priceless lost-tech resources into building giant impractical walking shrines to space Jesus instead of practical weapons that would be better on the battlefield. But we can recognize from an outside point of view that titans are another example of the Imperium's stupidity and ignorance, even if we acknowledge that they are cool and thematically exactly what the Imperium would build.

As to range, many titan weapons are energy beam weapons like honking megalasers and plasma cannons. Such weapons have line of sight only firing. They're effective range is blocked by the horizon. A higher mounted laser or plasma cannon will be able to reach further. Itcs sort of like what radio is broadcast from high towers to give it longer range.

As the the mind impulse control, a titan is humanoid with legs and a torso, the pilot can perceive the titan as an extension of his body and control it much like he moves his body. In a real sense he becomes one with the machjne and control it thru thought. That's 40k lore.

See these images for references.
https://i.warosu.org/data/tg/img/0434/30/1446510211210.jpg

https://i.warosu.org/data/tg/img/0338/88/1407174537644.jpg


Lastly I know a little about physics and engineering, and one thing I know is generally the larger a generator becomes the more efficient it becomes in terms of output vs mass of the generator and fuel consumed. Possibly a titan is big enough to contain a very large and efficient generator that can produce enough energy to run the energy weapons and shields.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Ah I see, though you couldn't really have one. The reason why Titans do so well is their height, they can have any weaponry. A tank can only have a main cannon or equivalent, any others are smaller arms like lascannon sponsons. I don't think you could ever have a tank that has the same firepower. Plus if you made the tank bigger to accommodate extra weaponry there far more problems with it traversing terrain.

Why exactly can't you put a titan's main gun on a tracked platform?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
As to range, many titan weapons are energy beam weapons like honking megalasers and plasma cannons. Such weapons have line of sight only firing. They're effective range is blocked by the horizon. A higher mounted laser or plasma cannon will be able to reach further. Itcs sort of like what radio is broadcast from high towers to give it longer range.

And if the enemy has the same energy beam weapons then they have line of sight to return fire against the titan. And, unlike the titan standing out in the open, the tank can use terrain to expose only its gun and make itself a much more difficult target to hit.

As the the mind impulse control, a titan is humanoid with legs and a torso, the pilot can perceive the titan as an extension of his body and control it much like he moves his body. In a real sense he becomes one with the machjne and control it thru thought. That's 40k lore.

"Legs and a torso" is not the same as human. A titan is very different in shape and movements, such that a person trying to make a titan move like a human would be lucky to walk without falling over. And TBH this would be worse than a tank because it would be close enough to human movements that the differences would be painfully obvious, while a tank is so far from human movements that it would be clearly driving a vehicle and separate from perceiving it as the driver's own body.

And yes, it is 40k lore. It's also the in-universe beliefs about what space Jesus commands. The obvious conclusion when the lore contradicts reasonable understanding of the situation is that yes, they believe that it works that way, but it's just another example of the Imperium being ignorant and stupid.

Lastly I know a little about physics and engineering, and one thing I know is generally the larger a generator becomes the more efficient it becomes in terms of output vs mass of the generator and fuel consumed. Possibly a titan is big enough to contain a very large and efficient generator that can produce enough energy to run the energy weapons and shields.

Again, the same principle applies to a large tank. Anything that can be used to justify a titan, other than its usefulness as a walking shrine to space Jesus, can be used even better to justify a titan-scale tank.

titans ultimately exist because THEY'RE COOL. Giant stompy robots with LAAAAAZOOOR GUNS!

they occupy the same niche as chainswords and well... pretty much all of 40k. they might not be effective but they're damn cool!

Regardless, there will exist terrain that a walker can go that a tank cannot. Huge boulders, mountainous terrain, etc. The bigger the tank, the bigger the path it will need. The smaller footprint that you say is a ground pressure problem is the same thing that allows for it to be able to traverse more terrain.

As for armor, the in-universe concession is void-shields.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Regardless, there will exist terrain that a walker can go that a tank cannot. Huge boulders, mountainous terrain, etc. The bigger the tank, the bigger the path it will need. The smaller footprint that you say is a ground pressure problem is the same thing that allows for it to be able to traverse more terrain.

This is highly overstated, at least at the scale of titans. A titan has very little ability to step over anything based on the range of motion of its legs and the requirement to keep its center of gravity within its footprint. And it would be extremely vulnerable to having that rough terrain collapse under its foot (hi, extreme ground pressure) and destroy the titan. Realistically anything too rough for tanks is going to be suicide for a titan anyway.

As for armor, the in-universe concession is void-shields.

Which would be even better on a tank, if the Imperium didn't have a rule that only walking shrines to space Jesus can have them.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Ah I see, though you couldn't really have one. The reason why Titans do so well is their height, they can have any weaponry. A tank can only have a main cannon or equivalent, any others are smaller arms like lascannon sponsons. I don't think you could ever have a tank that has the same firepower. Plus if you made the tank bigger to accommodate extra weaponry there far more problems with it traversing terrain.

Why exactly can't you put a titan's main gun on a tracked platform?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
As to range, many titan weapons are energy beam weapons like honking megalasers and plasma cannons. Such weapons have line of sight only firing. They're effective range is blocked by the horizon. A higher mounted laser or plasma cannon will be able to reach further. Itcs sort of like what radio is broadcast from high towers to give it longer range.

And if the enemy has the same energy beam weapons then they have line of sight to return fire against the titan. And, unlike the titan standing out in the open, the tank can use terrain to expose only its gun and make itself a much more difficult target to hit.

As the the mind impulse control, a titan is humanoid with legs and a torso, the pilot can perceive the titan as an extension of his body and control it much like he moves his body. In a real sense he becomes one with the machjne and control it thru thought. That's 40k lore.

"Legs and a torso" is not the same as human. A titan is very different in shape and movements, such that a person trying to make a titan move like a human would be lucky to walk without falling over. And TBH this would be worse than a tank because it would be close enough to human movements that the differences would be painfully obvious, while a tank is so far from human movements that it would be clearly driving a vehicle and separate from perceiving it as the driver's own body.

And yes, it is 40k lore. It's also the in-universe beliefs about what space Jesus commands. The obvious conclusion when the lore contradicts reasonable understanding of the situation is that yes, they believe that it works that way, but it's just another example of the Imperium being ignorant and stupid.

Lastly I know a little about physics and engineering, and one thing I know is generally the larger a generator becomes the more efficient it becomes in terms of output vs mass of the generator and fuel consumed. Possibly a titan is big enough to contain a very large and efficient generator that can produce enough energy to run the energy weapons and shields.

Again, the same principle applies to a large tank. Anything that can be used to justify a titan, other than its usefulness as a walking shrine to space Jesus, can be used even better to justify a titan-scale tank.

Sigh. A tracked vehicle s base most usually be wider than it is tall for stability, with a few notable exceptions like londons double decker busses and things like cranes which are special cases. Try to imagine a tracked vehicle with a base large enough to mount a huge cannon as high as a titans arm or, ghawd forbid, carapace. It would be like a pyramid. It would requires a lot of very flat and even ground to move over.

A titan can shift it's center of gravity like a man can to carry off center loads. It can gaks its legs and feet to move over uneven terrain far better than a tracked vehicle with a base a couple hundred feet across can.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
Try to imagine a tracked vehicle with a base large enough to mount a huge cannon as high as a titans arm or, ghawd forbid, carapace. It would be like a pyramid. It would requires a lot of very flat and even ground to move over.

I'm imagining that it would look something like this:



That's a Shadowsword, a tank that carries a titan-scale weapon and is explicitly stated to be capable of killing a titan with a single shot.

Or maybe, since a titan is tall enough that it's going to be visible from anywhere on the battlefield, we might as well have our vehicle fly. In which case we might get something like this:



That's a Tigershark AX-1-0, carrying a pair of titan-scale weapons and explicitly shown in canon to kill a titan with a single shot.

A titan can shift it's center of gravity like a man can to carry off center loads. It can gaks its legs and feet to move over uneven terrain far better than a tracked vehicle with a base a couple hundred feet across can

I think you are vastly overestimating the range of motion available to a titan.

A Titan sized tank would have a major weak point. Its tracks. Tracks can even be damaged by bad driving IRL. As I understand it, tank tracks for modern tanks are difficult to change on the battlefield. If you supersize them that much there would be no way the crew could fix it without specialist help. Tracks also wear out, I suspect more so if carrying that much weight. If a muddy field can stop a WW2 tank, it can stop a titan tank. But at least it won't tip onto its side if its blown off.

If the titan tank has a top mounted turret weapon (like tanks do) it better have enough depression. An energy weapon with 0° depression would struggle to hit the ground.

There are trade offs for all designs.

Tygre wrote:
Two legs may have stability problems, but legs actually have advantages in some terrain.

IRL DARPA is experimenting with devices to carry equipment in rough terrain. These devices use legs. Wheels able to cross logs etc would be too big.

Legs also don't dig themselves deeper in soft terrain (mud and sand etc)

Yes, but... the devices they are developing have 4 legs, not 2.

The only advantage a two-legged Titan would have over a gigantic tank with similar weaponry would be going up giant stairs, or dancing.

 Ouze wrote:

Tygre wrote:
Two legs may have stability problems, but legs actually have advantages in some terrain.

IRL DARPA is experimenting with devices to carry equipment in rough terrain. These devices use legs. Wheels able to cross logs etc would be too big.

Legs also don't dig themselves deeper in soft terrain (mud and sand etc)

Yes, but... the devices they are developing have 4 legs, not 2.

That's because 2 legs have stability problems. Apparently it is very hard to program stability for 2 legs.

All designs fail when you make them too big. If you supersize a star to a black hole then it becomes not very good at its job, such as producing light.

......

I don't understand why you're saying that 2 legs have stability problems but had advantages, and then saying they are developing load bearing robots (omitting they're not two legged), and then circling back there and saying well, not if they make them too big. In the context we're talking about (Titans), they surely are too big. So why bring up the practical applications of the load bearing robots, which are actually dissimilar anyway, at all? I'm not really clear where you are going with this, is what I am saying.

I personally don't think they have any advantages at all, save for A.) being cool and B.) for morale purposes to followers of the Imperial Cult.

Peregrine wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I thought success in combat was killing the other guy while not dying? So being in something with starship level shielding that annihilates entire tank squadrons is pretty helpful for that.

I know Titans aren't practical but they aren't THAT bad.

Until the other side has a tank with starship level shielding that annihilates entire titan squadrons, because the tank is not an idiotic unstable walker with much worse armor and firepower than a tank of equal mass.

Land Trains have orbital class weaponry and are tracked/wheeled but can lose in combat to a titan, but vice-versa is also true. and both can lose to a tigershark. which in turn can lose to a gargorkmorkanautagant which can lose to a land train and so on and so on.

Psychological warfare plays a huge part in why titans are soo effective that they may not even have to fire a shot. But like others have said beta Garmon was a better site for massed god-machine class battles than Terra. they were fine having the collateral damage occur somewhere other than the throne-world.

I'm be at least somewhat realistic, what would happen if all of the sudden there was an MegaGargant parked in front of the white house/#10Downey, Red Square, etc what would happen? probably capitulation.

 Ouze wrote:
......

I don't understand why you're saying that 2 legs have stability problems but had advantages, and then saying they are developing load bearing robots (omitting they're not two legged), and then circling back there and saying well, not if they make them too big. In the context we're talking about (Titans), they surely are too big. So why bring up the practical applications of the load bearing robots, which are actually dissimilar anyway, at all? I'm not really clear where you are going with this, is what I am saying.

I personally don't think they have any advantages at all, save for A.) being cool and B.) for morale purposes to followers of the Imperial Cult.

I am saying legs in general have there advantages. But only 2 legs have stability problems.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Regardless, there will exist terrain that a walker can go that a tank cannot. Huge boulders, mountainous terrain, etc. The bigger the tank, the bigger the path it will need. The smaller footprint that you say is a ground pressure problem is the same thing that allows for it to be able to traverse more terrain.

This is highly overstated, at least at the scale of titans. A titan has very little ability to step over anything based on the range of motion of its legs and the requirement to keep its center of gravity within its footprint. And it would be extremely vulnerable to having that rough terrain collapse under its foot (hi, extreme ground pressure) and destroy the titan. Realistically anything too rough for tanks is going to be suicide for a titan anyway.

Uhhh, negative. A Titan will be able to navigate more terrain than a tank. You're just making stuff up when you say terrain too rough for a tank would be suicide for a titan. The scale of the difference is dependent on design, but a smaller footprint, higher step height, and alterable "groundshape" gives more flexibility.

As for armor, the in-universe concession is void-shields.

Which would be even better on a tank, if the Imperium didn't have a rule that only walking shrines to space Jesus can have them.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Uhhh, negative. A Titan will be able to navigate more terrain than a tank. You're just making stuff up when you say terrain too rough for a tank would be suicide for a titan. The scale of the difference is dependent on design, but a smaller footprint, higher step height, and alterable "groundshape" gives more flexibility.

I don't think you appreciate the range of motion and stability and ground pressure issues a titan has. Let's say the titan tries to step up onto some rock that would obstruct a tank. The immense ground pressure of the foot impact knocks the rock free of the dirt, the titan's foot slides instead of resting firmly on the ground, and the titan falls over and becomes a useless pile of scrap metal. A titan would have to walk extremely carefully to avoid falling over or sinking into soft ground, and the end result is that any advantage in terrain is minimal at best. And it's quite likely worse at getting through difficult terrain because the tank, being a very stable shape, can just smash its way through a lot of terrain.

Why would they be better on a tank? If we're assuming same power plant (or whatever) they'd be equivalent.

Because everything else about the tank is better. For example, a tank with the same mass as a titan can have the same void shields and weapons and armor as a titan but also have a better power plant to support additional void shields (or, instead, better guns, etc). And the tank's lower profile allows it to avoid more incoming fire, while the titan's void shields have to deal with more damage.

Another use of a titan is as a big bullet magnet. While the enemy is shooting everything at it the rest of the imperial forces storm forward and attack while the enemy is focused on the titans. A common tactic might be to engage the enemy, fire a few energy cannon gaks, then stop advancing, transfer power to void shields and fire off a missile pod or projectile cannon that takes little power to fire.

The conventional tanks and infantry surge forward and attack while everyone's eyes are glued to the titans and win. Propagandists overstate the titans role in the victory to keep them valid as propaganda weapons.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Uhhh, negative. A Titan will be able to navigate more terrain than a tank. You're just making stuff up when you say terrain too rough for a tank would be suicide for a titan. The scale of the difference is dependent on design, but a smaller footprint, higher step height, and alterable "groundshape" gives more flexibility.

I don't think you appreciate the range of motion and stability and ground pressure issues a titan has. Let's say the titan tries to step up onto some rock that would obstruct a tank. The immense ground pressure of the foot impact knocks the rock free of the dirt, the titan's foot slides instead of resting firmly on the ground, and the titan falls over and becomes a useless pile of scrap metal. A titan would have to walk extremely carefully to avoid falling over or sinking into soft ground, and the end result is that any advantage in terrain is minimal at best. And it's quite likely worse at getting through difficult terrain because the tank, being a very stable shape, can just smash its way through a lot of terrain.

Why would they be better on a tank? If we're assuming same power plant (or whatever) they'd be equivalent.

Because everything else about the tank is better. For example, a tank with the same mass as a titan can have the same void shields and weapons and armor as a titan but also have a better power plant to support additional void shields (or, instead, better guns, etc). And the tank's lower profile allows it to avoid more incoming fire, while the titan's void shields have to deal with more damage.

I agree that if all else were equal, then a superheavy tank would be superior in terms of armor per surface area and also lower target profile. However FW stated that Shadowswords for example have to charge their Volcano cannon using the tank's internal combustion engine, making the tank immobile until the cannon is charged. Then the cannon fires one shot and then requires recharging all over again.

The main thing a Titan has over a tank is a plasma reactor, which is presumably how it can simultaneously charge so many large weapons, power its void shields, and move all at the same time (more or less). Titans concentrate the firepower of several such superheavy/Titan class weapons into one frame. Superheavy tanks are lower tech so they cannot accomplish all that. Now why are they lower tech? Because the Adeptus Mechanicus is a religious organization and therefore more interested in building walking avatars of the Machine God, in a craftsman fashion rather than mass production line. Even their non-humanoid, vehicular Ordinatus war machines start becoming mad science super weapons rather than rational mass produced weapons of war.

However with that all said, I don't see why the lesser superheavy tanks cannot be mass produced in such numbers that they still overwhelm Titans by numbers, except for the fact the Mechanicus makes both superheavies and Titans and clearly wants Titans to be superior, which is why we don't get armies of superheavy Bolo equivalents.

Has anyone ever asked why the eldar build titans? We know orks do it after seeing human titans and as a monument to gork n Mork. Why do eldar build them?

Elder titans use holofields so you can't actually see them to shoot them, negating the issue of everyone being able to target them because of their height.

Tracksnkay be easily damaged. What about knees? As well.as the multi meganewton impact of titan feet onto possibly unstable ground, all.that force needs to be taken by very complicated knee and ankle joints that you can't really armour properly.. The ultimate anti giant robot weapons are kneeseeker missiles.

Capitol Imperialis are also tracked vehicles with Void shields and titan level weapons and a giant plasma reactor. I cant remember if Squat Collossus and Imperial Leviathans had void shields.

Ordinatus are tracked platforms with weapons larger than a titan could carry.

I think the best part of this thread are "kneeseeker missiles"

Asking why build a titan instead of a tank is like asking the church why they build cathedrals when you could just throw a table in the back of the van and have a much more mobile chapel!

The SRM carrier and LRM carrier were pretty much the most powerful units in the original BattleTech but we don;t want to jut field armies of them do we

Surprised no one has mentioned the void shields. Titans have a forcefield that soaks quite a bit of punishment and recharges quickly. The smaller knights lack it, not sure about the warhounds. I’m thinking a Titan is inefficient unless it soaks up dmg and delivers dmg in a matter that exceeds tanks.

Recently played the warhammer Armageddon game, basically panzer core with a warhammer 40k skinn. In it a huge benefit of a titan is that it’s a single machine. You usually deal with 10 or so tanks in every tank squad. You expect to lose some in every engagement, needing to replace them. The Titans just kind of keep on trucking and unless you lose all your forces the Titans value doesn’t diminish. That’s from that games point of view anyway.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Uhhh, negative. A Titan will be able to navigate more terrain than a tank. You're just making stuff up when you say terrain too rough for a tank would be suicide for a titan. The scale of the difference is dependent on design, but a smaller footprint, higher step height, and alterable "groundshape" gives more flexibility.

I don't think you appreciate the range of motion and stability and ground pressure issues a titan has. Let's say the titan tries to step up onto some rock that would obstruct a tank. The immense ground pressure of the foot impact knocks the rock free of the dirt, the titan's foot slides instead of resting firmly on the ground, and the titan falls over and becomes a useless pile of scrap metal. A titan would have to walk extremely carefully to avoid falling over or sinking into soft ground, and the end result is that any advantage in terrain is minimal at best. And it's quite likely worse at getting through difficult terrain because the tank, being a very stable shape, can just smash its way through a lot of terrain.

As before, suspensors can alleviate the ground pressure issue, skirting most of your argument. As for balance, those Boston Dynamics robots are getting extremely impressive from a balace-fall-recovery standpoint. I think we can immensely decrease the risk of the scenario you describe.

As for smashing through mountainous boulders and rough, uneven terrain, I give the tank a "no". There are obviously physical barriers that will stop a tank that won't stop a walker.

Why would they be better on a tank? If we're assuming same power plant (or whatever) they'd be equivalent.

Because everything else about the tank is better. For example, a tank with the same mass as a titan can have the same void shields and weapons and armor as a titan but also have a better power plant to support additional void shields (or, instead, better guns, etc). And the tank's lower profile allows it to avoid more incoming fire, while the titan's void shields have to deal with more damage.

A titan is powered by a fusion reactor, a big one. How many can the imperium produce? How many can they maintain and service? Maybe your superheavy tanks are powered by lesser tech that can be maintained. in late fe numbers but doesn't even compare to the energy of a fusion reactor in any way.

 Mr Morden wrote:
The SRM carrier and LRM carrier were pretty much the most powerful units in the original BattleTech but we don;t want to jut field armies of them do we

Haha, nice. I remember those.

The thing to remember for this thread is that the Imperium has both Titans AND superheavy tanks (void shields and all). I submit that all that's required for Titans is a single strategic niche where they have any advantage. The Imperium obviously dedicates enough resources to war machines that it can diversify the systems it makes.

The space Jesus commentary might be skipping over the mentality of those who created the Titans.

In the case of mankind, Mars was cut off and abandoned for a considerable period during Old Night. They required machinery and artificial means to live, and so the machines became sacred. Thus, the Mechanicum came to worship the machine. The Titans Legions are a celebration of that worship, the creation of "God Machines" to venerate the Omnissiah. And, of course, they fight intercene wars of conflicting belief with those God Machines, in the desert of Martian topography.

Along comes the Emperor and his Legions, clad in power armor, and the men of Mars see him and decide he is the Omnissiah. The Emperor is happy to have them, and hey, giant stompy robots, they're welcome to come along too. Just to be clear, the Emperor asks, you can still make power armor and tanks and such right? Absolutely, the Mechanicum agrees, and thus the Titan Legions are folded into the Crusade.

In practice, it says in Titan Death that the Legions really did not encounter much in the way of fighting during the Crusade, as most races don't field anything that could match them, aside from the rare Eldar or Ork creation. They would show up as a walking idol of the human form, wielding weapons capable of leveling xenos and non-compliant human cities, and this was more than enough to sway local populations toward not resisting. It was only in the Heresy, as the Mechanicum split in two, that those city leveling weapons were once more turned against each other.

Today, with Titans greatly reduced in number, they typically act only to support a conventional military, providing an undeniably potent strongpoint of firepower and resilience in larger conflicts.

That's what Titans are used for in 40k. Does it make sense? No, but neither do Leman Russ tank designs, power fists, chainsaw swords, cathedral shaped spaceships, 1000 strong space marine chapters being important in conflicts with billions of participants, Primarchs being inexplicably huge, the warp being a nightmare realm full of demons... on and on. It's science fiction. Klingons and lightsabers don't make sense either, it's just part of the joy of the fantasy.

 Peregrine wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I thought success in combat was killing the other guy while not dying? So being in something with starship level shielding that annihilates entire tank squadrons is pretty helpful for that.

I know Titans aren't practical but they aren't THAT bad.

Until the other side has a tank with starship level shielding that annihilates entire titan squadrons, because the tank is not an idiotic unstable walker with much worse armor and firepower than a tank of equal mass.

But nobody does though. Except other Titans.

Having a walking idol to space Jesus is very important when space Jesus is real, is the only reason humanity still exists and is known to cause literal divine interventions.

I'd be interested to see the output of someone attempting to design a tank to have the same weaponry as say, a Warlord class Titan. I mean, there's effectively two large scale turrets with a 180 degree arc of fire, two with slightly less (160 degrees?) and all can fire simultaneously straight ahead without obscuring another turret's weapon.

A tank, meanwhile, tends to have one turret. We see with the superheavies that they plop plenty of smaller turrets onto sponsoons, but beyond hull mounting another large weapon with an extremely restricted angle of fire? It's quite difficult to exactly match the armament of a larger Titan whilst still retaining a tracked 'box' chassis. You'd end up having to adopt some sort of Dreadnought/battleship design with the turrets stacked above each other.

The problem with this is that with the size of the tracks along with all the machinery and crew inside, the hypothetical supertank would now be about half the height of the titan. In other words, it would still be bloody huge. And whilst it might gain some minimal cover advantage from that fact (I mean, come on, it's huge, cover is going to be a minimal factor), it would lose the advantages of angles/height of fire in roughly equivalent proportion.

Our tank would be much more stable a firing platform, but since we're either firing space lazers or magic cannons that our titans don't blow themselves backwards from, I think we have to assume weapon recoil is something long since solved.

Looking at turning, Titans would be more maneouvrable on the spot than a tank this size. The design required to match a large titan's primary weaponry would require tracks and a chassis of such length/width that I imagine the turning arc would be bloody ridiculous. Assuming a titan can turn even half as efficiently as a human, it would be much easier to reposition than our giant tank.

The tank would have a considerable advantage of speed however. Stick it on a flattish road surface, and even being as large as it is, it would leave our large titan friend in the dirt. Tracks and wheels are always more speed and energy efficient than legs in an ideal environment. In marginal terrain a titan would have a minor advantage (the toes and ability to step over irregularities make it easier to traverse to an extent), but any sufficiently rough terrain would really be impassable to both.

The tank is superior from a service perspective. You can stick a ladder up against it and climb straight to the top; whereas a titan requires cranes and all sorts of specialist gear.

In terms of armour, the tank wins that round too. Having a more widely distributed centre of gravity would allow for larger and thicker quantities of armour (should that be desired) to be carried for less energy across a smaller surface area.


When all is said and done, I think I'd rather have the tank. But the titan has sufficient advantages that I could see it being deployed as an auxiliary unit in certain scenarios which the tank might have more difficulty in.

Tyran wrote:Having a walking idol to space Jesus is very important when space Jesus is real, is the only reason humanity still exists and is known to cause literal divine interventions.

Some people are too quick to dismiss this. Faith actually has an effect in the physical plane.

regarding the balance issue, we can't compare them to machines today because they have something we don't. a MIU. this BTW is something every mecha franchise that bothers to think of it has in common, they all use the pilot's own sense of balance to guide the machine.

what happens when it steps on a loose rock? same thing that happens when you as a person does

I think people have a great deal more flexibility and range of movement with their arms. I would suggest that titans rely rather more on gyroscope rather than counter balancing with limbs. Also people fall over regularly on uneven ground.

 Flinty wrote:
I think people have a great deal more flexibility and range of movement with their arms. I would suggest that titans rely rather more on gyroscope rather than counter balancing with limbs. Also people fall over regularly on uneven ground.

Also, look at a warhounds legs. They are not designed mechanically like human legs so there needs to be a conversion in there. A humans reaction to regain its balance will not be what would be the correct motion for that kind of leg.

The Imperator appears to have legs more akin to a human's, though the femur of the Imperator is much shorter than the tibia. So there is going to be issues there as it effectively has its knee higher up its leg than a human does.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
You just failed to sum up a titan, tanks are nothing to a titan in the lore, even shadowswords etc. They aren't even in the same ball park. Show me an instance, just one in the lore where a tank destroys a city, I can give you many of a titan. I mean where is everyone getting their info thinking titans are so under-powered and weak... Even in the game they are insanely cheesy and the lore they are even more cheesy.

I'm talking about a hypothetical titan-equivalent tank that would exist if, instead of walking shines to space Jesus, the Imperium made practical war machines. Obviously none of the canon tanks do it because the Imperium didn't build anything big enough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
A titans weapons have great range and the titan, standing taller, let's them fire out to further range than a low platform like a tank.

A tank with those same weapons has the same range, except it also has the ability to use terrain for protection instead of being a giant exposed target for everything on the battlefield. In a tank vs. titan duel the tanks win a massacre.

Titans can step over obstacles that could stop a huge tracked vehicle.

Not easily. A titan would actually have very little ability to step over obstacles without losing its balance and falling over. And much of what a titan could step over is probably small enough that a tank could just smash through it.

Also titans have pilots controlling them via mind impulse interface that let's them operate it like their own bodies making them relatively agile for such huge constructs. A human pilot might not be able to interface with a tracked vehicle and operate it like they operate their bodies.

A titan's movement is nothing like a human's, so I don't see how this applies. And agility is about physical shape, how much force the driving hydraulics can exert, etc, not how comfortable the driver feels. All the comfort in the world won't do much if the titan is not physically capable of moving like you want it to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Camkierhi wrote:
But if we want everything to be practical and fit our universe, maybe sci-fi is not the best setting for your toy soldiers.

You're kind of missing the point here. Titans are ing stupid and this is a good thing. The Imperium is a totalitarian theocracy run by suicidal lunatics, not a rational state making pragmatic choices to win wars. It is 100% appropriate that they pour immense amounts of priceless lost-tech resources into building giant impractical walking shrines to space Jesus instead of practical weapons that would be better on the battlefield. But we can recognize from an outside point of view that titans are another example of the Imperium's stupidity and ignorance, even if we acknowledge that they are cool and thematically exactly what the Imperium would build.

As to range, many titan weapons are energy beam weapons like honking megalasers and plasma cannons. Such weapons have line of sight only firing. They're effective range is blocked by the horizon. A higher mounted laser or plasma cannon will be able to reach further. Itcs sort of like what radio is broadcast from high towers to give it longer range.

As the the mind impulse control, a titan is humanoid with legs and a torso, the pilot can perceive the titan as an extension of his body and control it much like he moves his body. In a real sense he becomes one with the machjne and control it thru thought. That's 40k lore.

See these images for references.
https://i.warosu.org/data/tg/img/0434/30/1446510211210.jpg

https://i.warosu.org/data/tg/img/0338/88/1407174537644.jpg


Lastly I know a little about physics and engineering, and one thing I know is generally the larger a generator becomes the more efficient it becomes in terms of output vs mass of the generator and fuel consumed. Possibly a titan is big enough to contain a very large and efficient generator that can produce enough energy to run the energy weapons and shields.

You aren't factoring the height of the titan, the horizon would be close to 9 miles away. But I mean they have height so they can carry many main cannons all stacked up and hanging from arms etc. a tank can only have one main cannon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Ah I see, though you couldn't really have one. The reason why Titans do so well is their height, they can have any weaponry. A tank can only have a main cannon or equivalent, any others are smaller arms like lascannon sponsons. I don't think you could ever have a tank that has the same firepower. Plus if you made the tank bigger to accommodate extra weaponry there far more problems with it traversing terrain.

Why exactly can't you put a titan's main gun on a tracked platform?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
As to range, many titan weapons are energy beam weapons like honking megalasers and plasma cannons. Such weapons have line of sight only firing. They're effective range is blocked by the horizon. A higher mounted laser or plasma cannon will be able to reach further. Itcs sort of like what radio is broadcast from high towers to give it longer range.

And if the enemy has the same energy beam weapons then they have line of sight to return fire against the titan. And, unlike the titan standing out in the open, the tank can use terrain to expose only its gun and make itself a much more difficult target to hit.

As the the mind impulse control, a titan is humanoid with legs and a torso, the pilot can perceive the titan as an extension of his body and control it much like he moves his body. In a real sense he becomes one with the machjne and control it thru thought. That's 40k lore.

"Legs and a torso" is not the same as human. A titan is very different in shape and movements, such that a person trying to make a titan move like a human would be lucky to walk without falling over. And TBH this would be worse than a tank because it would be close enough to human movements that the differences would be painfully obvious, while a tank is so far from human movements that it would be clearly driving a vehicle and separate from perceiving it as the driver's own body.

And yes, it is 40k lore. It's also the in-universe beliefs about what space Jesus commands. The obvious conclusion when the lore contradicts reasonable understanding of the situation is that yes, they believe that it works that way, but it's just another example of the Imperium being ignorant and stupid.

Lastly I know a little about physics and engineering, and one thing I know is generally the larger a generator becomes the more efficient it becomes in terms of output vs mass of the generator and fuel consumed. Possibly a titan is big enough to contain a very large and efficient generator that can produce enough energy to run the energy weapons and shields.

Again, the same principle applies to a large tank. Anything that can be used to justify a titan, other than its usefulness as a walking shrine to space Jesus, can be used even better to justify a titan-scale tank.

Because its a track with only one of the Titans weapons on it. Plus nothing on tracks could have the same amount of protection as a titan, they have gak loads of voidshields on them. Also their line of fire is far greater as they look over a battlefield rather than through it.

If you make a bigger tank it can carry more than 1 main weapon, and could be fitted with all the kit that a titan carries, on a more stable and concealable platform.

Although concelqlment is a relative term by the time you get to multi thousand ton behemoths.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also titans are pretty much a lot of eggs in one basket. Spreading the weapon joy between a wider array of smaller platforms has advantages as well.

 Flinty wrote:
If you make a bigger tank it can carry more than 1 main weapon, and could be fitted with all the kit that a titan carries, on a more stable and concealable platform.

Although concelqlment is a relative term by the time you get to multi thousand ton behemoths.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also titans are pretty much a lot of eggs in one basket. Spreading the weapon joy between a wider array of smaller platforms has advantages as well.

Yeah but they are still going to be hull-mounted so its not even in the same ball park. Plus even without a titans weaponry It can stomp everything other than titans under its tracks.

Turrets are only really a problem for something with recoil, so I've never really understood why the volcano cannon on a shadow sword is hull mounted. Maybe they have lost all knowledge of flexible.cables or something.

You could just stick a titan weapon and its whole.mounting assembly on a.tracked base and then you have a turreted titan class weapon on a tracked chassis. If you get 4 of those chassis next to each other then you have a low.slung tracked titan.

Or just use, you know, Deathstrike missiles from an adjacent continent or something...

 Flinty wrote:
Turrets are only really a problem for something with recoil, so I've never really understood why the volcano cannon on a shadow sword is hull mounted. Maybe they have lost all knowledge of flexible.cables or something.

You could just stick a titan weapon and its whole.mounting assembly on a.tracked base and then you have a turreted titan class weapon on a tracked chassis. If you get 4 of those chassis next to each other then you have a low.slung tracked titan.

Or just use, you know, Deathstrike missiles from an adjacent continent or something...

Well how are you going to have a tank big enough for their weapons not to be hull-mounted. Traversing the land on something that wide would be impossible. There are 40k tanks that are titan sized but they aren't that wide they are more tall than they are wide. The Leviathan can only have a fraction of the weaponry as a titan and its nearly as big as some of the mid-sized titans. I mean your idea to put all the weaponry of a titan onto a tank is more realistically ridiculous than the concept of a titan.

Why not take realism out of it and enjoy how unbelievably cool titans are. I mean if you could realistically create a machine that big, have that kind of defensive capabilities and have it walk, like in the 40k universe it would be far better than any tank could be.

I love stompy robots. I just happen to agree with Peregrine that it would be much more resource efficient to have something different. However as has also been well presented, pure resource efficiency is not really something that the Imperium does.

If giant walkers were something that would have a real battlefield utility, modern armies would use them.

Instead we have helicopters which have all the benefits of concealable firepower and mobility, firing guided weapons that mean they don't need all the armour that titans get loaded with.

^their weapons aren't quite the same caliber, however.

Battleships have large calibre weapons, and of course they are the proven pinnacle of all current warfare and are being built in ever larger numbers... or maybe not

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Why not take realism out of it and enjoy how unbelievably cool titans are.

Why not follow your own advice? If you're going to take realism out of it then why do you keep trying to defend titans as realistic?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
You aren't factoring the height of the titan, the horizon would be close to 9 miles away. But I mean they have height so they can carry many main cannons all stacked up and hanging from arms etc. a tank can only have one main cannon.

Again, height is a double-edged sword. The horizon is 9 miles away for the titan, but that also means that the titan is visible to everything within 9 miles. And oops, that Shadowsword hiding in a ruin somewhere in the 9-mile radius just killed the titan.

Because its a track with only one of the Titans weapons on it.

Still capable of killing a titan with one shot.

Plus nothing on tracks could have the same amount of protection as a titan, they have gak loads of voidshields on them.

Why is it impossible to put void shields on a tracked vehicle?

(Hint: it isn't, there are tracked vehicles with void shields.)

I still say the religious angle is the best one; especially given how the people making the Titans, the Mechanicum, are doing so from religious conviction.

 Flinty wrote:
I love stompy robots. I just happen to agree with Peregrine that it would be much more resource efficient to have something different. However as has also been well presented, pure resource efficiency is not really something that the Imperium does.

If giant walkers were something that would have a real battlefield utility, modern armies would use them.

Instead we have helicopters which have all the benefits of concealable firepower and mobility, firing guided weapons that mean they don't need all the armour that titans get loaded with.

Helicopters as they stand mind you would be an impractical choice for the IoM simply because they'd not always work. try deploying an apache on Mars for example. Although this doesn't mean fliers that fill a similer role won't work (the Stormhawk, and Stormraven gunships for example)

Yeah, helicopters on Mars... what a stupid idea

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPL_Mars_Helicopter_Scout

40k has loads of helicopter equivalents. What it is missing is decent guided missile technology.

 Flinty wrote:
I love stompy robots. I just happen to agree with Peregrine that it would be much more resource efficient to have something different. However as has also been well presented, pure resource efficiency is not really something that the Imperium does.

If giant walkers were something that would have a real battlefield utility, modern armies would use them.

Instead we have helicopters which have all the benefits of concealable firepower and mobility, firing guided weapons that mean they don't need all the armour that titans get loaded with.

No we don't use them because we can barely build human sized robots never mind a 50 foot mechanical walker. We simply don't have the technology, that we haven't used them isn't proof that they are not useful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Flinty wrote:
Battleships have large calibre weapons, and of course they are the proven pinnacle of all current warfare and are being built in ever larger numbers... or maybe not

Yeah and battleships can only fire most of their weaponry like 20 km.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Flinty wrote:
Yeah, helicopters on Mars... what a stupid idea

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPL_Mars_Helicopter_Scout

40k has loads of helicopter equivalents. What it is missing is decent guided missile technology.

If you are fighting on a world with little to no atmosphere then helicopters are useless. They are also effected by bad weather, high winds etc. Our weather is pretty tame compared to other planets.

 Flinty wrote:
Yeah, helicopters on Mars... what a stupid idea

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPL_Mars_Helicopter_Scout

40k has loads of helicopter equivalents. What it is missing is decent guided missile technology.

I specificly said Apache for a reason. yes a helicopter could work on Mars, it has an atmosphere, but as helocopter designed to fly in earths atmosphere MIGHT not fly in other atmospheres and it certainly wouldn't work on the Moon. vehicle design for a star fairing empire may be forced to adapt to the fact that there are a whole host of unpredictable planetary conditions we don't need to worry about on earth. efficancy might take a back seat to reliability

Only reason we are not using walkers is we don't have the tech yet. It is in development, we see constantly how robotic companies try hard to reproduce a humanoid configuration. they work on other designs as well, the most promising being multi legged.

Going with the premise that Titans exist in the far future, I can see them working, across various terrains and in many situations. They are not the best option, but they are a viable option. With shields and armour enough to stop the majority of weaponry on a battlefield, they would be pretty good, until a nice big gun comes along. No different to knights really, or for that matter dreadnoughts, all will stick out like a soar thumb, will be an icon to allies and scare the pants off most enemy. Until they are blown up. Just like a huge tank really! Because you worship that huge tank as much as your huge stompy robot. And there are plenty of big guns about that could kill a tank as easily as a titan.

I agree completely with Peregrine and Flinty, there are better designs, and it is difficult to understand why you would go with Titans given all the technology you have at your fingertips. Tanks are the best option that we know of. With current understanding and technology I would design a lot of slightly smaller tanks that each carry maybe one or two of the weapons.

The flyer tech alone would be a much better platform. Personally I would go with drones, and can't understand why the future space soldiers don't use them.

One question to ask would be, if you did not have titans, why would you have titan scale/killer guns? If it was just a case of bigger guns, why do we not have huge silly stuff now. I am probably in for a roasting here, but I think a lot of our weaponry is smaller than stuff used in WWII. (apart from nukes obviously) So it comes down to the old racing game, agility, manoeuvrability, armour, camo and fire power. Things go through different stages. Think we are on camo kick at the moment, if you can't see me you can't shoot me. the likes of the Apache were max firepower and agility. The A10 max firepower and manoeuvrability. etc etc. We know that a lot of the 40k aesthetic leans toward the great war (1914-18) but then there are elements like the hover capabilities of Landspeeders etc. bit weird having them from the same place as a fossil like the Leman Russ, and they are all human designs. I can understand Tau having different kit, and Eldar and Orks.

 Camkierhi wrote:
Only reason we are not using walkers is we don't have the tech yet. It is in development, we see constantly how robotic companies try hard to reproduce a humanoid configuration. they work on other designs as well, the most promising being multi legged.

Going with the premise that Titans exist in the far future, I can see them working, across various terrains and in many situations. They are not the best option, but they are a viable option. With shields and armour enough to stop the majority of weaponry on a battlefield, they would be pretty good, until a nice big gun comes along. No different to knights really, or for that matter dreadnoughts, all will stick out like a soar thumb, will be an icon to allies and scare the pants off most enemy. Until they are blown up. Just like a huge tank really! Because you worship that huge tank as much as your huge stompy robot. And there are plenty of big guns about that could kill a tank as easily as a titan.

I agree completely with Peregrine and Flinty, there are better designs, and it is difficult to understand why you would go with Titans given all the technology you have at your fingertips. Tanks are the best option that we know of. With current understanding and technology I would design a lot of slightly smaller tanks that each carry maybe one or two of the weapons.

The flyer tech alone would be a much better platform. Personally I would go with drones, and can't understand why the future space soldiers don't use them.

One question to ask would be, if you did not have titans, why would you have titan scale/killer guns? If it was just a case of bigger guns, why do we not have huge silly stuff now. I am probably in for a roasting here, but I think a lot of our weaponry is smaller than stuff used in WWII. (apart from nukes obviously) So it comes down to the old racing game, agility, manoeuvrability, armour, camo and fire power. Things go through different stages. Think we are on camo kick at the moment, if you can't see me you can't shoot me. the likes of the Apache were max firepower and agility. The A10 max firepower and manoeuvrability. etc etc. We know that a lot of the 40k aesthetic leans toward the great war (1914-18) but then there are elements like the hover capabilities of Landspeeders etc. bit weird having them from the same place as a fossil like the Leman Russ, and they are all human designs. I can understand Tau having different kit, and Eldar and Orks.

I agree with most of what you said but not that there are better designs than Titans, nothing can hold as much weaponry or as many voidshields than a titan, plus it has the second best vantage point towards the battlefield, fliers have a better vantage point but they can't wield the same weaponry, and nowhere near the same weaponry and are susceptible to smaller arms fire, only the biggest can carry titan weaponry and they can only usually carry one main cannon like the thunderhawk but even that only holds the smallest of titan weaponry. As for terrain the only thing that can stop a titan would be hills and mountains and if that was the case they just wouldn't be used, they might find a longer way around but they can always go to a battlefield that was accessible, titans are rarely deployed on small scale wars, if titans are deployed its usually on a world scale battle and they support whatever forces they can get to.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
nothing can hold as much weaponry or as many voidshields than a titan

{citation needed}

In reality a titan's shape means it will have weaker weapons and void shields than a tank of comparable mass. The titan has to spend vast amounts of space and mass on its legs, its shape has a poor ratio of internal space to mass compared to a nice efficient box on tracks, and any armor will be much thinner than a tank's armor. The only reason titans have the best weapons in 40k is that space Jesus commands that all of the best gear must go on the walking shrine to space Jesus instead of on tanks.

plus it has the second best vantage point towards the battlefield

Again, this is a double-edged sword. A titan has a lot of visibility from its elevated position, but it also means that every titan killer on the battlefield has visibility to the titan.

fliers have a better vantage point but they can't wield the same weaponry

The Manta would like to disagree with this claim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Camkierhi wrote:
Only reason we are not using walkers is we don't have the tech yet. It is in development, we see constantly how robotic companies try hard to reproduce a humanoid configuration. they work on other designs as well, the most promising being multi legged.

The key difference here is that those walkers are human-sized and designed to interact with a world scaled for humans. Nobody is working on giant titan-size walkers because they're a fundamentally stupid idea.

Personally I would go with drones, and can't understand why the future space soldiers don't use them.

Because space Jesus says that AI is heresy.

Peregrine wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
nothing can hold as much weaponry or as many voidshields than a titan

{citation needed}

Go on, what 40k tanks have more void shields and weapons than the largest classes of Titan? I am curious what I've missed.

The largest IoM tank has a single macrocannon (so, a Titan-grade weapon) plus battle cannons and heavy bolters and other such weapons, plus 4 Void Shields.
The second largest IoM Titans (and the "regular" ones to boot), the Warlords, have over 4 Void Shields too (Reavers have 4, and seeing as Imperators, the largest class, have 12, I think Warlords having about 6 is a good estimate), can also carry Macrocannons, as well as at least 4 other Titan-grade weapons.

Surely, if it were sensible in the 40k universe (so, ignoring our conventions of physics and logic, and using internal logic of 40k), why wouldn't the Imperium try to put similar armaments on tanks if they were just as, if not more, effective?

In reality

40k isn't.

Who cares what IRL shape and thermodynamics have to say?

plus it has the second best vantage point towards the battlefield

Again, this is a double-edged sword. A titan has a lot of visibility from its elevated position, but it also means that every titan killer on the battlefield has visibility to the titan.

Good thing then that the Titan can both engage the Shadowsword at roughly the same time (if they can both see eachother, then it's who-shoots-first), and still return fire if hit. The Shadowsword can't.

I would like to point out that, yes, in our world, Titans are super ineffective. The argument of Titans being effective is solely in the context of 40k. No, I'm not advocating people saying things like "it's fantasy, so just handwave it away and loosen up". I'm instead in support of something more like "we should judge the Titan by it's effects and context of how it functions in the 40k universe, and real world physics should not affect fictional physics".

 Peregrine wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
nothing can hold as much weaponry or as many voidshields than a titan

{citation needed}

In reality a titan's shape means it will have weaker weapons and void shields than a tank of comparable mass. The titan has to spend vast amounts of space and mass on its legs, its shape has a poor ratio of internal space to mass compared to a nice efficient box on tracks, and any armor will be much thinner than a tank's armor. The only reason titans have the best weapons in 40k is that space Jesus commands that all of the best gear must go on the walking shrine to space Jesus instead of on tanks.

plus it has the second best vantage point towards the battlefield

Again, this is a double-edged sword. A titan has a lot of visibility from its elevated position, but it also means that every titan killer on the battlefield has visibility to the titan.

fliers have a better vantage point but they can't wield the same weaponry

The Manta would like to disagree with this claim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Camkierhi wrote:
Only reason we are not using walkers is we don't have the tech yet. It is in development, we see constantly how robotic companies try hard to reproduce a humanoid configuration. they work on other designs as well, the most promising being multi legged.

The key difference here is that those walkers are human-sized and designed to interact with a world scaled for humans. Nobody is working on giant titan-size walkers because they're a fundamentally stupid idea.

Personally I would go with drones, and can't understand why the future space soldiers don't use them.

Because space Jesus says that AI is heresy.

Nothing that can be deployed on the ground. There are no other vehicles that have as many voidshields as a titan, I don't need a citation unless you can name another vehicle with more.

"In reality a titan's shape means it will have weaker weapons and void shields than a tank of comparable mass. The titan has to spend vast amounts of space and mass on its legs, its shape has a poor ratio of internal space to mass compared to a nice efficient box on tracks, and any armor will be much thinner than a tank's armor. The only reason titans have the best weapons in 40k is that space Jesus commands that all of the best gear must go on the walking shrine to space Jesus instead of on tanks."

We also need a citation for this. You do realise that titans don't have the same reactors as tanks? It has a plasma reactor, so its pretty much got endless amounts of energy.

Yes but a titan has voidshields to combat the amount of crap on the ground that attacks it and still shadowswords and the like are nothing in comparison to a titan, I mean a reaver is nothing compared to a warlord. The shadowswords and the like need a hell of a lot of time to take a titan down unless they are deployed in great numbers.

The manta can only match the smaller titans, doesn't come close to a warlord.

As for drones, they would be the best tech but it wouldn't be fun fielding an army of drones lol

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Go on, what 40k tanks have more void shields and weapons than the largest classes of Titan?

You're missing the point. The claim was that a tank can't fit the same level of void shields, not that the Imperium has chosen to save its void shields for its walking shrines to space Jesus instead of putting them on tanks. There is nothing about making a vehicle have legs and arms that makes it better able to carry void shields. In a hypothetical universe where the Imperium built practical tanks instead of titans those tanks would have just as much void shielding.

Surely, if it were sensible in the 40k universe (so, ignoring our conventions of physics and logic, and using internal logic of 40k), why wouldn't the Imperium try to put similar armaments on tanks if they were just as, if not more, effective?

Because space Jesus demands walking shrines to Himself. Titans, above all, are religious icons and tanks can't fill that role the same way. I have no idea why you think that "maximize effectiveness" is a driving concern for a faction whose fluff constantly references that faction making stupid decisions because it's an ignorant theocracy where common sense is heresy.

Good thing then that the Titan can both engage the Shadowsword at roughly the same time (if they can both see eachother, then it's who-shoots-first), and still return fire if hit. The Shadowsword can't.

A Shadowsword is capable of one hit kills against titans. The side that shoots first wins, and the Shadowsword has much better ability to hide behind obstructions and delay detection for a moment while it aims a kill shot. In fact, given that a titan's primary weapons are mounted much lower than its top, the Shadowsword might just score a fatal head shot on the titan before the titan's own weapons even get above the horizon.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Go on, what 40k tanks have more void shields and weapons than the largest classes of Titan?

You're missing the point. The claim was that a tank can't fit the same level of void shields, not that the Imperium has chosen to save its void shields for its walking shrines to space Jesus instead of putting them on tanks. There is nothing about making a vehicle have legs and arms that makes it better able to carry void shields. In a hypothetical universe where the Imperium built practical tanks instead of titans those tanks would have just as much void shielding.

Surely, if it were sensible in the 40k universe (so, ignoring our conventions of physics and logic, and using internal logic of 40k), why wouldn't the Imperium try to put similar armaments on tanks if they were just as, if not more, effective?

Because space Jesus demands walking shrines to Himself. Titans, above all, are religious icons and tanks can't fill that role the same way. I have no idea why you think that "maximize effectiveness" is a driving concern for a faction whose fluff constantly references that faction making stupid decisions because it's an ignorant theocracy where common sense is heresy.

Good thing then that the Titan can both engage the Shadowsword at roughly the same time (if they can both see eachother, then it's who-shoots-first), and still return fire if hit. The Shadowsword can't.

A Shadowsword is capable of one hit kills against titans. The side that shoots first wins, and the Shadowsword has much better ability to hide behind obstructions and delay detection for a moment while it aims a kill shot. In fact, given that a titan's primary weapons are mounted much lower than its top, the Shadowsword might just score a fatal head shot on the titan before the titan's own weapons even get above the horizon.

How do you know a tank can? The only reason the Primaris one has any is because its big enough, but its a hover craft so terrain considerations aren't the same, a massive tank on tracks, do you know the logistics of that.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Nothing that can be deployed on the ground. There are no other vehicles that have as many voidshields as a titan, I don't need a citation unless you can name another vehicle with more.

Again, the fact that the Imperium chooses not to build vehicles with void shields does not mean that it can't be done.

We also need a citation for this.

You need a citation for basic geometry? A box will have much a much better ratio of volume to surface area than a titan-shaped object. If you put X tons of armor on each then the box will have a greater thickness of armor because that X tons is spread out across a smaller area. If you need X volume to hold a reactor the box will have to spend a smaller percentage of its total volume to hold X. Etc.

You do realise that titans don't have the same reactors as tanks?

You do realize that we're talking about a hypothetical alternate 40k in which the Imperium builds titan-scale tanks instead of titans, right? There's nothing about having arms and legs that allows a vehicle to have a better reactor, anything the titan can do can be done by the titan-scale tank.

Yes but a titan has voidshields to combat the amount of crap on the ground that attacks it and still shadowswords and the like are nothing in comparison to a titan, I mean a reaver is nothing compared to a warlord. The shadowswords and the like need a hell of a lot of time to take a titan down unless they are deployed in great numbers.

A Shadowsword is explicitly stated to be capable of one-shot kills on titans.

The manta can only match the smaller titans, doesn't come close to a warlord.

Nope. The Tigershark AX-1-0, a smaller aircraft with only the Manta's primary railguns and not its large number of secondary weapons, is explicitly stated to be a counter to the Imperium's largest titans. It's probably only the smaller titans that are vulnerable to one-shot kills by a Tigershark (in canon a Warhound is destroyed in one shot), so an attack on a Warlord would probably mean multiple Tigersharks and taking losses in the attack, but those larger titans are its intended prey.

Also, remember that a Manta is not a conventional 40k ground unit. It's a small warp-capable warship designed for void warfare against capital ships.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
How do you know a tank can? The only reason the Primaris one has any is because its big enough, but its a hover craft so terrain considerations aren't the same, a massive tank on tracks, do you know the logistics of that.

I know there's no reason why having a different shape prevents the use of void shields. Or do you have a reason why a titan-scale tank's lack of arms and legs would prevent it from having void shields installed?

When has a Shadowsword ever one-shot a titan?

Tyran wrote:
When has a Shadowsword ever one-shot a titan?

IA1, the Shadowsword is explicitly stated to be capable of severing a titan's leg with a single volcano cannon shot. And guess what happens when a bipedal walker loses a leg.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Nothing that can be deployed on the ground. There are no other vehicles that have as many voidshields as a titan, I don't need a citation unless you can name another vehicle with more.

Again, the fact that the Imperium chooses not to build vehicles with void shields does not mean that it can't be done.

We also need a citation for this.

You need a citation for basic geometry? A box will have much a much better ratio of volume to surface area than a titan-shaped object. If you put X tons of armor on each then the box will have a greater thickness of armor because that X tons is spread out across a smaller area. If you need X volume to hold a reactor the box will have to spend a smaller percentage of its total volume to hold X. Etc.

You do realise that titans don't have the same reactors as tanks?

You do realize that we're talking about a hypothetical alternate 40k in which the Imperium builds titan-scale tanks instead of titans, right? There's nothing about having arms and legs that allows a vehicle to have a better reactor, anything the titan can do can be done by the titan-scale tank.

Yes but a titan has voidshields to combat the amount of crap on the ground that attacks it and still shadowswords and the like are nothing in comparison to a titan, I mean a reaver is nothing compared to a warlord. The shadowswords and the like need a hell of a lot of time to take a titan down unless they are deployed in great numbers.

A Shadowsword is explicitly stated to be capable of one-shot kills on titans.

The manta can only match the smaller titans, doesn't come close to a warlord.

Nope. The Tigershark AX-1-0, a smaller aircraft with only the Manta's primary railguns and not its large number of secondary weapons, is explicitly stated to be a counter to the Imperium's largest titans. And remember, a Manta is not a conventional 40k ground unit. It's a small warp-capable warship designed for void warfare against capital ships.

Well whats to stop them from doing it now, I mean saying they just choose not to isn't really the Imperiums way.

Okay what are the dimensions of the reactor and whats its output?

A voidshield is a field, it doesn't work like that, it doesn't matter what they geometry is. What matters is what can house a voidshield, tanks obviously can't. Otherwise they would use them and protect vast amounts of their troops etc. The reason the titan can house voidshields is most likely because of its reactor not its geometry.

A tank has considerations due to its fuel reactor. They have combustion reactors not plasma reactors.

Yes It can one shot a titan, you have to get through its voidshields though.

Counter doesn't mean perform as well or has the same output.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Well whats to stop them from doing it now, I mean saying they just choose not to isn't really the Imperiums way.

Err, lol? Choosing not to do something isn't the Imperium's way? Are we discussing the same 40k here? Because in the canon version of 40k the Imperium is full of examples of not doing things because space Jesus says that change is heresy. This is the Imperium where it takes 500 years to approve a modification to a tank, and it requires STC documentation that it is recovered technology from the sacred word of god and not a modern invention. The Imperium where it's considered a significant fact when a space marine chapter defies the admech and bolts a lascannon turret to a Rhino.

Okay what are the dimensions of the reactor and whats its output?

I don't know, but you're still not answering the question. If you assume X size and Y output why is a titan capable of using it but not a titan-scale tank?

Counter doesn't mean perform as well or has the same output.

It really does, at least in the context of units that were specifically designed to kill titans.

What matters is what can house a voidshield, tanks obviously can't. Otherwise they would use them and protect vast amounts of their troops etc.

Alternatively, space Jesus demands that all available void shields be reserved for His walking shrines and not given to mere tanks. You know, the canon explanation when dealing with rare technology like void shields.

A tank has considerations due to its fuel reactor. They have combustion reactors not plasma reactors.

Why can't a tank have a plasma reactor?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Well whats to stop them from doing it now, I mean saying they just choose not to isn't really the Imperiums way.

Err, lol? Choosing not to do something isn't the Imperium's way? Are we discussing the same 40k here? Because in the canon version of 40k the Imperium is full of examples of not doing things because space Jesus says that change is heresy. This is the Imperium where it takes 500 years to approve a modification to a tank, and it requires STC documentation that it is recovered technology from the sacred word of god and not a modern invention. The Imperium where it's considered a significant fact when a space marine chapter defies the admech and bolts a lascannon turret to a Rhino.

Okay what are the dimensions of the reactor and whats its output?

I don't know, but you're still not answering the question. If you assume X size and Y output why is a titan capable of using it but not a titan-scale tank?

Counter doesn't mean perform as well or has the same output.

It really does, at least in the context of units that were specifically designed to kill titans.

Well why wouldn't they. So you are saying its impossible to add to or change an STC construct, I mean seriously... They strapped a couple on that Primaris SH.

Because of its plasma reactor probably a tank isn't big enough to house them especially not titan sized ones as there are smaller voidshields.

Again counter doesn't mean perform as well or has the same output.

 Peregrine wrote:

Tyran wrote:
When has a Shadowsword ever one-shot a titan?

IA1, the Shadowsword is explicitly stated to be capable of severing a titan's leg with a single volcano cannon shot. And guess what happens when a bipedal walker loses a leg.

Assuming of course that the Void shield is disabled otherwise that shot is not touching the leg.

For the record, the Imperium does have a non-humanoid ground vehicle with a plasma reactor: the Capitol Imperialis.

The Capitol Imperialis, and the Leviathan command vehicle, both have void shields at levels comparable to Titans. I can't quite find my old Epic sources so cannot confirm whether or not the Leviathan had a plasma reactor as well. However we can see from this there is no specific reason why a tracked vehicle cannot have a plasma reactor or void shield generators. However these vehicles are pretty huge, comparable to a Titan, so one issue is whether the Imperium can miniaturize plasma reactors beyond a certain size. Though that does not in itself address the issue of surface area difference between a Titan and a supersized tracked vehicle.

Also the lower sized titans don't have constant acting voidshields, they have to be turned on and off depending on where the attacks are coming from.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Also the lower sized titans don't have constant acting voidshields, they have to be turned on and off depending on where the attacks are coming from.

That AFAIK is not true. Once activated, the void shields are 360 degree protection. If you have evidence otherwise, please provide citation and quote. You may be thinking of Knights and Ion Shields, but those are different from void shields. Alternatively, you may be thinking of Titans that are not expecting combat. Titans don't always have their shields running because of worry about wear and tear on the generators and the reactor.

The only example I can recall of a Capitol Imperialis was when it got its ass kicked by a Tyranid Bio-titan.

Iracundus wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Also the lower sized titans don't have constant acting voidshields, they have to be turned on and off depending on where the attacks are coming from.

That AFAIK is not true. Once activated, the void shields are 360 degree protection. If you have evidence otherwise, please provide citation and quote. You may be thinking of Knights and Ion Shields, but those are different from void shields. Alternatively, you may be thinking of Titans that are not expecting combat. Titans don't always have their shields running because of worry about wear and tear on the generators and the reactor.

Yeah you're probably right, after googling, that was most likely head cannon.

Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Go on, what 40k tanks have more void shields and weapons than the largest classes of Titan?

You're missing the point. The claim was that a tank can't fit the same level of void shields, not that the Imperium has chosen to save its void shields for its walking shrines to space Jesus instead of putting them on tanks. There is nothing about making a vehicle have legs and arms that makes it better able to carry void shields. In a hypothetical universe where the Imperium built practical tanks instead of titans those tanks would have just as much void shielding.

But why wouldn't the Imperium do it? I mean, if it IS more effective, as you say.

You mention a "practical world". That's not 40k. Your rules of a "practical" world might not apply there.
Look, I get what you're coming from, with your whole "it's sensible in our world, so it must be sensible in 40k, it's the IoM who are dumb", but what makes you think at all that what we know is sensible in our world is anything the same as the fictional one of 40k?

Surely, if it were sensible in the 40k universe (so, ignoring our conventions of physics and logic, and using internal logic of 40k), why wouldn't the Imperium try to put similar armaments on tanks if they were just as, if not more, effective?

Because space Jesus demands walking shrines to Himself. Titans, above all, are religious icons and tanks can't fill that role the same way. I have no idea why you think that "maximize effectiveness" is a driving concern for a faction whose fluff constantly references that faction making stupid decisions because it's an ignorant theocracy where common sense is heresy.

And who's fluff also states that they're pretty much the dominant military force in the galaxy? For all their gothic fanciness and devotion to ritual over common sense (a myth and overgeneralisation, I'm afraid - you see plenty of times in 40k where high-ranking IoM leaders use practicality over tradition, an example, funnily enough, is the Ultramarines), the Imperium sure does a brilliant practical job of beating nearly any single opponent. The only reason the IoM suffers so badly, like most factions, is because they're not in a protracted war against one target; they're attacked on all fronts.

For saying that, according to you, the Titans are dumb and would be super ineffective, they do pretty well in 40k.

It's almost like the rules of our reality aren't the same as 40k's.

Good thing then that the Titan can both engage the Shadowsword at roughly the same time (if they can both see eachother, then it's who-shoots-first), and still return fire if hit. The Shadowsword can't.

A Shadowsword is capable of one hit kills against titans.

If it breaches the void shields.

Plus, the source you've given was from slicing out the leg from under the Titan. However, the Titan's gun is going to have a line of sight to the Shadowsword before the Shadowsword gets line of sight to the legs. In fact, the legs are the most likely part of the Titan to have cover, due to most cover coming up from the ground.

Even more reason a Titan is superior.

The side that shoots first wins, and the Shadowsword has much better ability to hide behind obstructions and delay detection for a moment while it aims a kill shot. In fact, given that a titan's primary weapons are mounted much lower than its top, the Shadowsword might just score a fatal head shot on the titan before the titan's own weapons even get above the horizon.

But you didn't mention or cite Shadowswords making "headshot" kills. You mentioned sniping out the leg. Plus, don't know what Titans you've been looking at, but plenty have guns above the head - Warlords have Shadowsword-killing armaments on the upper shoulder mountings.

Plus, "the side that shoots first wins" is incorrect here - the Titan has Void Shields.

Peregrine wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Nothing that can be deployed on the ground. There are no other vehicles that have as many voidshields as a titan, I don't need a citation unless you can name another vehicle with more.

Again, the fact that the Imperium chooses not to build vehicles with void shields does not mean that it can't be done.

But why wouldn't they? I know you like to cling to you "the IoM is super dumb" headcanon, but they're really not THAT dumb. If it were effective, they'd do it (see, Land Raider Crusader, Land Raider Redeemer, Primaris, Xenophase Swords, Razorback, etc etc) If putting void shields on vehicles were that effective/feasible (and they do have the capability to do it, to at least try, as evidenced by things like the Leviathan), then why wouldn't they do it more?

Simple answer is - our understanding of what "should" be effective doesn't apply to 40k. Our rules of causality do not apply. 40k is a different world, and in that world, Void Shields are not as effective on tanks as they are on Titans, for whatever reason.

We also need a citation for this.

You need a citation for basic geometry? A box will have much a much better ratio of volume to surface area than a titan-shaped object. If you put X tons of armor on each then the box will have a greater thickness of armor because that X tons is spread out across a smaller area. If you need X volume to hold a reactor the box will have to spend a smaller percentage of its total volume to hold X. Etc.

And do those rules apply to 40k? You know for sure what the laws of a fictional, imaginary universe are?

You do realise that titans don't have the same reactors as tanks?

You do realize that we're talking about a hypothetical alternate 40k in which the Imperium builds titan-scale tanks instead of titans, right? There's nothing about having arms and legs that allows a vehicle to have a better reactor, anything the titan can do can be done by the titan-scale tank.

But a Titan-scale tank then loses the espoused benefits of being able to hide in cover. Plus, would the tank have more weight, therefore more energy requirements, if built to Titan scale? Maybe the cost is too high - all we know is that, at the current moment, Titans seem to be the best option available to the IoM, who do not see Leviathans as the same kind of quality as a Titan.

Yes but a titan has voidshields to combat the amount of crap on the ground that attacks it and still shadowswords and the like are nothing in comparison to a titan, I mean a reaver is nothing compared to a warlord. The shadowswords and the like need a hell of a lot of time to take a titan down unless they are deployed in great numbers.

A Shadowsword is explicitly stated to be capable of one-shot kills on titans.

As you said, with leg-shot kills. We don't know if that was with the void shields up or down, but considering that Titans are considered far more valuable than Shadowswords by the IoM, who are the ones winning wars with them, I'm going to work on the understanding that Titans are more effective than Shadowswords.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
How do you know a tank can? The only reason the Primaris one has any is because its big enough, but its a hover craft so terrain considerations aren't the same, a massive tank on tracks, do you know the logistics of that.

I know there's no reason why having a different shape prevents the use of void shields.

Really? You're a master techpriest with all the accumulated knowledge of Void Shields and their installation in the Warhammer 40,000 universe?

The Imperium wouldn't make something more effective if they didn't have a pre existing STC plan for it. The Imperium doesn't innovate or create, they follow ancient instructions and kill people who try innovation.

pm713 wrote:
The Imperium wouldn't make something more effective if they didn't have a pre existing STC plan for it. The Imperium doesn't innovate or create, they follow ancient instructions and kill people who try innovation.

*points to Land Raider Redeemer/ Ares/ Angel Infernus/ Solemnus Aggressor/ Wrath of Mjalnar, Infernum and Vortimer pattern Razorbacks, the entire Primaris range, Nephilim Jetfighter (used new STC jet engines, but required modification to older designs, creating new aircraft), etc etc*

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But why wouldn't the Imperium do it? I mean, if it IS more effective, as you say.

Because space Jesus said so.

what makes you think at all that what we know is sensible in our world is anything the same as the fictional one of 40k?

Because we're talking about issues of basic physics and geometry here. If things in 40k are so detached from reality that, say, the surface area of a titan is less than the surface area of a tank of equal mass then we're clearly dealing with such bizarre and incomprehensible rules that conversation of any kind is pointless.

And who's fluff also states that they're pretty much the dominant military force in the galaxy?

Fluff that is written as in-universe propaganda from the point of view of the Imperium, and is explicitly stated by the authors to be full of bias, half-truths, etc. On the other hand, we have examples like a railgun Tigershark (a standard-issue Tau bomber) killing a Warhound in a single strafing run. That kind of performance is incompatible with the idea that titans are some kind of dominant force at the level that titan fanboys claim they are.

If it breaches the void shields.

It, or the artillery barrage targeting the titan from miles away. Void shields are hardly an impossible obstacle.

Plus, the source you've given was from slicing out the leg from under the Titan. However, the Titan's gun is going to have a line of sight to the Shadowsword before the Shadowsword gets line of sight to the legs. In fact, the legs are the most likely part of the Titan to have cover, due to most cover coming up from the ground.

And the Shadowsword is going to have line of sight to the titan's head before the titan's main guns have line of sight to the Shadowsword. And a head shot is just as good as a leg shot.

But you didn't mention or cite Shadowswords making "headshot" kills. You mentioned sniping out the leg.

Well yes, because the IA1 quote explicitly mentions a leg shot. But it's not like a titan's head is any less critical, kill the crew and the titan is a useless wreck.

And do those rules apply to 40k? You know for sure what the laws of a fictional, imaginary universe are?

If the angles of a triangle in 40k do not add up to 180* then what we're dealing with is so far detached from reality that there's no point in analyzing it. You might as well argue that titans win because once a tank gets above a certain size its wheels turn into squares and it can't move, so all large vehicles have to have legs.

Plus, would the tank have more weight, therefore more energy requirements, if built to Titan scale?

No. In fact, the exact opposite is true. A titan's shape makes it vastly less efficient than a tank and the tank would have a huge advantage in weight and energy requirements.

pm713 wrote:
The Imperium wouldn't make something more effective if they didn't have a pre existing STC plan for it. The Imperium doesn't innovate or create, they follow ancient instructions and kill people who try innovation.

It has done in the past and it certainly does now.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But why wouldn't the Imperium do it? I mean, if it IS more effective, as you say.

Because space Jesus said so.

And not at all because there's a chance our understanding of physics doesn't apply to 40k?

I mean, the dogmatism with which you say everything was decreed by "space Jesus" is even more extreme than even the Imperium, and that's saying something.

what makes you think at all that what we know is sensible in our world is anything the same as the fictional one of 40k?

Because we're talking about issues of basic physics and geometry here. If things in 40k are so detached from reality that, say, the surface area of a titan is less than the surface area of a tank of equal mass then we're clearly dealing with such bizarre and incomprehensible rules that conversation of any kind is pointless.

Again, implying that base physics are the be-all and end-all of all fictional universes.

40k doesn't obey our physics. Can you prove otherwise?

However, in general, yeah, I'd agree. All kinds of conversations which involve physics in 40k are worthless, because we don't know the laws of 40k's physics. Simple.

And who's fluff also states that they're pretty much the dominant military force in the galaxy?

Fluff that is written as in-universe propaganda from the point of view of the Imperium, and is explicitly stated by the authors to be full of bias, half-truths, etc. On the other hand, we have examples like a railgun Tigershark (a standard-issue Tau bomber) killing a Warhound in a single strafing run. That kind of performance is incompatible with the idea that titans are some kind of dominant force at the level that titan fanboys claim they are.

So, if apparently "fluff can't be trusted", then I can't trust your account of Shadowswords downing Titans? That's just propaganda, right?

Same as T'au Tigersharks taking out Warhounds in a single run, that's just T'au propaganda.

Sorry, you can't dismiss sources with "it's propaganda" and then expect to use sources with the same amount of validity. That's not how this works.

If it breaches the void shields.

It, or the artillery barrage targeting the titan from miles away. Void shields are hardly an impossible obstacle.

So, it's not just the Shadowsword then, is it? It's the Shadowsword, plus whatever you need to take down the Void Shield. If we're playing by those rules, then that Shadowsword or the artillery pieces just got alpha-striked by Drop Podding Space Marines, or a bombing group of Marauders.

Let's stop moving those goalposts.

Plus, the source you've given was from slicing out the leg from under the Titan. However, the Titan's gun is going to have a line of sight to the Shadowsword before the Shadowsword gets line of sight to the legs. In fact, the legs are the most likely part of the Titan to have cover, due to most cover coming up from the ground.

And the Shadowsword is going to have line of sight to the titan's head before the titan's main guns have line of sight to the Shadowsword. And a head shot is just as good as a leg shot.

Is it? Because the example you gave (which TOTALLY can't be propaganda) was of it killing the Titan via a legshot, not a headshot. If you've got a source of a Shadowsword killing a Titan, with Void Shields up, via a headshot, I'll accept your answer.

Even IF I accept it, the Titan still has guns above the head. Not main guns, but guns more than strong enough to take down a Shadowsword in one shot.

But you didn't mention or cite Shadowswords making "headshot" kills. You mentioned sniping out the leg.

Well yes, because the IA1 quote explicitly mentions a leg shot. But it's not like a titan's head is any less critical, kill the crew and the titan is a useless wreck.

Considering that your argument for "one-shotting" was all about using gravity to cripple the Titan, and not just sheer force, I think that's a poor defence.

If Titans were THAT easy to one-shot, don't you think Titans would be, yanno, less of the unstoppable God-Machines that they are shown to be in 40k?
(And again, if you bring up "muh propaganda", what's to defend your Shadowswords from the same?)

And do those rules apply to 40k? You know for sure what the laws of a fictional, imaginary universe are?

If the angles of a triangle in 40k do not add up to 180* then what we're dealing with is so far detached from reality that there's no point in analyzing it. You might as well argue that titans win because once a tank gets above a certain size its wheels turn into squares and it can't move, so all large vehicles have to have legs.

That's exactly what I'm saying. I'm saying look at 40k how it's presented in it's own universe, and throw out the notion that our laws of physics have a tangible impact on a fictional universe.

Plus, would the tank have more weight, therefore more energy requirements, if built to Titan scale?

No. In fact, the exact opposite is true. A titan's shape makes it vastly less efficient than a tank and the tank would have a huge advantage in weight and energy requirements.

According to OUR laws.

I wonder, has anyone been paying attention to the development of Generation Zero? It has some interesting robot designs.

Indeed if mecha were to exist I doubt they would follow the humanoid form you see in 40K titans. A 4 legged variety with a back mounted weapon even heavier caliber than that seen on Warlord titans would be possible, most likely having advantages in recoil absorption and mobility/re-positioning. Like a lovable dog, mounted with a gun capable of clearing cities.

40K has always had the Rule Of Cool above any other, but I'd still enjoy seeing those brutally practical machines of war.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

pm713 wrote:
The Imperium wouldn't make something more effective if they didn't have a pre existing STC plan for it. The Imperium doesn't innovate or create, they follow ancient instructions and kill people who try innovation.

*points to Land Raider Redeemer/ Ares/ Angel Infernus/ Solemnus Aggressor/ Wrath of Mjalnar, Infernum and Vortimer pattern Razorbacks, the entire Primaris range, Nephilim Jetfighter (used new STC jet engines, but required modification to older designs, creating new aircraft), etc etc*

Yet, they literally refer to innovation as something that can get you killed. I think the general reasoning is like Cawl in 40k. If you're useful enough you can avoid being shot in the head. So making a Razorback means you don't die but experimenting for a new tank means dying.
They still took hundreds of years to approve taking the heavy bolters off a Predator and strapping on Lascannons.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Stuff

Given that your premise seems to be "geometry doesn't work like it does in the real world" I don't think there's any point in continuing the discussion with you.

PS: the example of a Tigershark killing a Warhound in one shot is from a book written from the Imperial point of view. So even in their own biased accounting of the story the Imperium admits that a standard mass-produced Tigershark can one-shot a titan.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Stuff

Given that your premise seems to be "geometry doesn't work like it does in the real world" I don't think there's any point in continuing the discussion with you.

PS: the example of a Tigershark killing a Warhound in one shot is from a book written from the Imperial point of view. So even in their own biased accounting of the story the Imperium admits that a standard mass-produced Tigershark can one-shot a titan.

You keep talking about geography, what does that have to do with the field of a void-shield. The question is 'can it fit and function on a tank' not can the titan viodshield field surround the tank, geography obviously doesn't have anything to do with it as there are void shields of every kind, but can you fit a titan voidshield onto a tank, well it pretty much looks like you can't and 'you can't mess with an STC' is nonsense, the lore isn't on your side on that one.

Voidshields aren't perfect so 'it can one shot a titan' is irrelevant, any macro weaponry can but its not the norm. Titans take massive amounts of macro weapons to put them down normally. Titans will batter other titans with far more output than that for ages to break their voidshields especially if they are of the same ilk. I mean a lasgun has been known to break through a Rosarius in one shot, doesn't mean thats a common occurrence.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
You keep talking about geography, what does that have to do with the field of a void-shield. The question is 'can it fit and function on a tank' not can the titan viodshield field surround the tank, geography obviously doesn't have anything to do with it as there are void shields of every kind, but can you fit a titan voidshield onto a tank, well it pretty much looks like you can't and 'you can't mess with an STC' is nonsense, the lore isn't on your side on that one.

Why can't you fit one on a tank? Why does a void shield generator require arms and legs to function? You just keep repeating the claim that titans are somehow uniquely able to use void shields, rather than the Imperium just saving its precious few void shields for its walking shrines to space Jesus and letting the IG deal with whatever is left.

Voidshields aren't perfect so 'it can one shot a titan' is irrelevant, any macro weaponry can but its not the norm. Titans take massive amounts of macro weapons to put them down normally. Titans will batter other titans with far more output than that for ages to break their voidshields especially if they are of the same ilk. I mean a lasgun has been known to break through a Rosarius in one shot, doesn't mean thats a common occurrence.

It's common enough that, after the Tigershark blew away a Warhound in one shot, the titan group's surviving commander withdrew from the battlefield rather than face another attack. IOW, it wasn't a fluke event that probably wouldn't happen again, the Tigershark killed it by straightforward superior firepower. And, again, the Tigershark was explicitly designed to defeat the Imperium's largest titans. We might be talking about the difference between one shot and 2-3 strafing runs to get a kill, but the titan is still going down.

As I recall both the space marine Mastadon and Astraeus tanks have void shields inbuilt. One being old the other of Cawl's design. Neither of which are small or particularly massive.

cody.d. wrote:
As I recall both the space marine Mastadon and Astraeus tanks have void shields inbuilt. One being old the other of Cawl's design. Neither of which are small or particularly massive.

Yep. It's clearly not the case that tanks can't have void shields, they just don't get the same priority for rare advanced tech like void shields.

Peregrine, I have a question since you seem to both hate most of the background of 40k and based on previous posts seem to want to purge most of the model line, most cool or interesting rules and variety. What exactly do you like about 40k?

Yes based on logic and real world physics Titans make no sense. So does 90 percent of 40k. Want to know what they are though, cool. There is a reason that giant bipedal robots are a near universal thing in sci fi, people like them.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Peregrine, I have a question since you seem to both hate most of the background of 40k and based on previous posts seem to want to purge most of the model line, most cool or interesting rules and variety. What exactly do you like about 40k?

Yes based on logic and real world physics Titans make no sense. So does 90 percent of 40k. Want to know what they are though, cool. There is a reason that giant bipedal robots are a near universal thing in sci fi, people like them.

You are badly mistaken here. Titans are ing stupid from a real-world point of view, but they're perfect for 40k. It is absolute perfect that the Imperium has idiotic walking shrines to space Jesus, because the Imperium is an insane theocracy that executes anyone who dares to understand science or engineering. I love the fact that titans exist fluff-wise, and they're pretty cool models. The only thing I object to is people trying to defend titans as a reasonable and practical thing to have, rather than another monument to the Imperium's idiocy and waste.

Could I try a quick summary? Please let me know where I've missed someone's point.

Everyone agrees giant stompy robots are awesome and perfect for the imperium.

There are multiple sources of titan class weapons being fitted to other platforms, such as tanks and aircraft. This covers both spe ific weapons that get fitted to titans (volcano cannon, plasma blastgun) and weapons specifically introduced to kill titans (tau super heavy rail gun thingies).

There are multiple sources demonstrating that void shields get fitted to tanks or other tracked vehicles. The Capitol Imperialis is specifically noted as having titan class shields, and from memory, it even had the same level of protection as a Warlord (6 shields in old Epic money).

The main disagreement seems to stem from why the Imperium doesn't do more big tank type things with void shields compared to titan type things with void shields. I don't think this particular argument can be resolved

 Peregrine wrote:

 Camkierhi wrote:
not taking in to account any development in materials over thousands of years

We don't need to account for materials because the flaws with titans are issues of geometry. A titan will always have more surface area than a tank with comparable internal volume, which means that an equal mass of armor will be much thinner and give much less protection to the titan. A titan will always have a smaller surface area in contact with the ground and will always have the additional force of the foot impacting the ground with every step, so it will always be more vulnerable to soft ground. A titan will always have its center of gravity significantly higher up and require a much smaller rotation angle to put that center of gravity outside of its footprint and fall over. Any materials improvements that can help a titan will also help a conventional tank, and the tank will always win at everything except being a walking icon to space Jesus.

and as has been said, the sight of it would be just awe

Until a Tigershark pilot sees that nice easy target and puts a fatal railgun salvo through it. Then your icon to space Jesus becomes a burning wreck and the only awe is at the enemies that smashed it.

The simple factor of raising your line of sight above everything on the ground and your guns automatically having height advantage alone are not to be scoffed at either.

Err, no. Success in combat is about keeping a low profile and staying out of sight. A tall target that stands out from every possible direction is an easy target, and any advantage in gun elevation is negated by the fact that the enemy guns now have line of sight for return fire.

These were my arguments too, but its the same argument about any dude in a robot suit. Titans, mechwarrior, Macross, etc.
Rule of cool here, no biggie.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
titans ultimately exist because THEY'RE COOL. Giant stompy robots with LAAAAAZOOOR GUNS!

they occupy the same niche as chainswords and well... pretty much all of 40k. they might not be effective but they're damn cool!

Quote this man a hundred times.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tygre wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
......

I don't understand why you're saying that 2 legs have stability problems but had advantages, and then saying they are developing load bearing robots (omitting they're not two legged), and then circling back there and saying well, not if they make them too big. In the context we're talking about (Titans), they surely are too big. So why bring up the practical applications of the load bearing robots, which are actually dissimilar anyway, at all? I'm not really clear where you are going with this, is what I am saying.

I personally don't think they have any advantages at all, save for A.) being cool and B.) for morale purposes to followers of the Imperial Cult.

I am saying legs in general have there advantages. But only 2 legs have stability problems.

FOUR LEGS GOOD TWO LEGS BAD!

As monuments to idiocy and waste, they're much like the cathedrals of the Middle Ages where they required so much effort and higher tech than equivalent buildings. Notre Dame is a terrible building for its requirements.

Like Notre Dame, however, the point is to show how powerful and godly you are by being able to build and maintain something so impractical.

pm713 wrote:Yet, they literally refer to innovation as something that can get you killed. I think the general reasoning is like Cawl in 40k. If you're useful enough you can avoid being shot in the head. So making a Razorback means you don't die but experimenting for a new tank means dying.
They still took hundreds of years to approve taking the heavy bolters off a Predator and strapping on Lascannons.

But if having Void Shielded super-heavy tanks was so much more effective than Titans are, as Peregrine is saying, then surely you'd be able to avoid execution because it would be, according to Peregrine, infinitely more effective.

Either Titans *are* the superior option, because tanks cannot be made as effective (and thus the people who tried were executed because it wasn't useful enough), or somehow, in the 10,000 years of the Imperium, no-one has tried to make a Void-Shielded Tank which apparently should be easily superior.

Peregrine wrote:Given that your premise seems to be "geometry doesn't work like it does in the real world" I don't think there's any point in continuing the discussion with you.

If your premise is "this fictional universe absolutely must obey by our current incomplete understanding of physics, and any signs that point to things being effective are just propaganda", I think I'd agree it's not worth discussing with you.

PS: the example of a Tigershark killing a Warhound in one shot is from a book written from the Imperial point of view. So even in their own biased accounting of the story the Imperium admits that a standard mass-produced Tigershark can one-shot a titan.

bUt tHaT'S jUSt PROpAgaNdA!

It's clearly propaganda, because the Imperium just falsify the strength of the T'au, making them look like an actual threat so Imperial warlords can justify sending massive armies and military expeditions to attack the T'au, and gain massive glory and honour leading battles against a foe that, in reality isn't as much of a threat. They make their enemy seem stronger, so they look better when they beat them.

See, not hard to explain that with PRoPAGaNDa

Peregrine wrote:Why can't you fit one on a tank? Why does a void shield generator require arms and legs to function? You just keep repeating the claim that titans are somehow uniquely able to use void shields, rather than the Imperium just saving its precious few void shields for its walking shrines to space Jesus and letting the IG deal with whatever is left.

But maybe those walking shrines are more effective than tanks, for whatever reason, and so it makes more sense to shield them?

You seem so fixated on the idea that Titans just simply CANNOT be effective - solely based on conceptions of real-world physics.

It's common enough that, after the Tigershark blew away a Warhound in one shot, the titan group's surviving commander withdrew from the battlefield rather than face another attack. IOW, it wasn't a fluke event that probably wouldn't happen again, the Tigershark killed it by straightforward superior firepower. And, again, the Tigershark was explicitly designed to defeat the Imperium's largest titans. We might be talking about the difference between one shot and 2-3 strafing runs to get a kill, but the titan is still going down.

Pssh. Propaganda, eh?



Again, I'm not saying that there isn't a religious element to the Titans. There absolutely is. However, even IF tanks were superior to Titans, why wouldn't tanks then become massive rolling churches? As I see it, the Imperium creates incredibly powerful war machines. The most powerful of these war machines, because they represent the massive strength of the Imperium, and the God-Emperor as a result, are converted to add cathedrals, shrines, and general religious pomp.

Titans aren't defended and made strong because they're religious icons. They're religious icons BECAUSE they're well defended and made strong.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

pm713 wrote:Yet, they literally refer to innovation as something that can get you killed. I think the general reasoning is like Cawl in 40k. If you're useful enough you can avoid being shot in the head. So making a Razorback means you don't die but experimenting for a new tank means dying.
They still took hundreds of years to approve taking the heavy bolters off a Predator and strapping on Lascannons.

But if having Void Shielded super-heavy tanks was so much more effective than Titans are, as Peregrine is saying, then surely you'd be able to avoid execution because it would be, according to Peregrine, infinitely more effective.

Either Titans *are* the superior option, because tanks cannot be made as effective (and thus the people who tried were executed because it wasn't useful enough), or somehow, in the 10,000 years of the Imperium, no-one has tried to make a Void-Shielded Tank which apparently should be easily superior.
.

3rd option. Adeptus Titanicus came out first before super heavy imperial tanks were really a thing

And who in their right mind would retcon Titans!

 Peregrine wrote:
The only thing I object to is people trying to defend titans as a reasonable and practical thing to have, rather than another monument to the Imperium's idiocy and waste.

I repeat from my earlier post; titans would have their uses. The tank concept is great and all, and probably more practical 80% of the time. But the basic issue with trying to fit armaments to the same degree as a titan onto a motorised chassis creates considerable limitations and difficulties of its own.

For fun, I spent a while in paint trying to figure out the rough dimensions the tank would need to have to mount the degree of arms/armour/shielding of a Warlord Titan along with equivalent arc of fire capability, and the result was really something of a mess. It ended up resembling a giant train more than a tank; and had about a third of the height of the warlord and slightly more width than one. And even that was really quite impractical, you'd need to make it wider still to give it a more stable centre of gravity.

Don't get me wrong, as a gun platform it would be of far more general use. But I can think of certain situations in which the Titan might be of more practicality.
(Note, I'm referring to the larger titans here, the smaller ones are clearly extraneous)

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

pm713 wrote:Yet, they literally refer to innovation as something that can get you killed. I think the general reasoning is like Cawl in 40k. If you're useful enough you can avoid being shot in the head. So making a Razorback means you don't die but experimenting for a new tank means dying.
They still took hundreds of years to approve taking the heavy bolters off a Predator and strapping on Lascannons.

But if having Void Shielded super-heavy tanks was so much more effective than Titans are, as Peregrine is saying, then surely you'd be able to avoid execution because it would be, according to Peregrine, infinitely more effective.

Either Titans *are* the superior option, because tanks cannot be made as effective (and thus the people who tried were executed because it wasn't useful enough), or somehow, in the 10,000 years of the Imperium, no-one has tried to make a Void-Shielded Tank which apparently should be easily superior.

I think it's pretty likely nobody has actually tried.

The Astraeus is packing void shields FYI.

Iirc there is a single void shielded tank in HH and I think it might be a primarchs transport, it could just be as simple as the tanks cannot handle the power needed for a shield or the tech has been lost, lastly it could be that because they don't already have void shields the ad mech won't put them on the tanks... Cos heresy.

The only practical reason to build titans is to step over stuff your tanks cannot negotiate and to reach the 'top shelf' of things like battlements. Sieges are apparently a thing in 40k and Titans seem to be the answer to them - they're the battering ram that can get through the force fields of most fortresses, can reach and destroy the battlements with melee attacks, and so forth. Keep in mind that 40k has force fields that can withstand orbital bombardment indefinitely (at least bombardment short of planet killer weaponry).

The counter to titans is other titans - again, melee through the force fields, so you have titans to defend your fortresses to keep enemy titans from the walls.

The Imperium, if course, will happily use them for almost anything if they have them, because the Imperium does dumb things. There's little to no reason to put a titan (or knight) into the open battlefield, though if the titan can avoid being swarmed it's basically having a field day sitting behind its void shields and vaporizing everything it comes across.

Big things are fighty and fighty things are big

I blame the orks and their influence on the warp, and as such their warp influence on reality and on the zeitgeist of other 40k psychic races.

nareik wrote:
Big things are fighty and fighty things are big

I blame the orks and their influence on the warp, and as such their warp influence on reality and on the zeitgeist of other 40k psychic races.

Funny you say that. Gargants and mecha gargants are actually giant tracked vehicles - aka tanks. Go Mork!

Mega Gargants are shown with tracks, but normal gargants just have their little.feet.peeking out from under the belly.plate.

For the record:

Captiol Imperialis - 6 Void Shields
Leviathan - 4 Void Shieds
Squat Cyclops - 5 Void Shields
Squat Land Train - 2 Void Shields
Squat Colossus - 6 Void Shields

Claims that "tanks" (or treaded land vehicles) cannot have Void-Shields are false.

- - - -

The Shadowsword carries a Volcano Cannon
The Storm Blade carries a Plasma Blastgun, which is a weapon originally designed for the Reaver Titan. Furthermore, the Storm blade is powered by a plasma reactor which is a Titan-style power-plant.
The Squat Cyclops has an enormous "Hellfury Cannon" which is a giant energy beam capable of punching through multiple Void Shields through to the target inside in one continuous blast. Obviously that requires a Titan-style energy source.

Claims that "tanks" cannot have "Titan Weaponry" or "Titan Power Plants" are false.

Also. . .

 Peregrine wrote:
. . . space Jesus . .

 Peregrine wrote:
"space Jesus said so".

 Peregrine wrote:
. . . walking icon to space Jesus.

 Peregrine wrote:
sh[r]ines to space Jesus,

 Peregrine wrote:
space Jesus commands.

 Peregrine wrote:
shrine to space Jesus

 Peregrine wrote:
only walking shrines to space Jesus

 Peregrine wrote:
space Jesus commands

 Peregrine wrote:
space Jesus says

 Peregrine wrote:
space Jesus demands

 Peregrine wrote:
space Jesus says

 Peregrine wrote:
Because space Jesus said so.

 Peregrine wrote:
walking shrines to space Jesus

 Peregrine wrote:
space Jesus

Titans pre-date "space Jesus". There are Warlord Titans in service from the Age of Strife and some even from the Dark Age of Technology, so possibly 10,000 years before even the Imperium.
Titans do not exist "because space Jesus".



So we can all save some time by tossing those arguments. You gotta look for something that a Titan can do that a tracked vehicle cannot, and that still comes down to navigating terrain. Walkers can be deployed effectively in places that treaded vehicles cannot. That's even the case in the old Titan Legions rulebook, as is the case in Epic Armageddon. For example, a Titan can step over impassable or dangerous terrain that is lower than the Titan's knees and less than 2 cm wide. This would include large/thick walls, stepped cliffs, big boulders etc. In older rules, Titans could enter woods while other superheavy vehicles could not.

So in-universe, Titans can go places their treaded vehicles can't. That's enough of a reason to have Titans. You have to have land-based siege weapons (because city/fortification anti-bombardment shields can be extremely powerful), and you have to be able to wage war in unpredictable types of terrain (that treaded vehicles may not be able to navigate). Thus Titans.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Titans pre-date "space Jesus".

In this context, "Space Jesus" is the Omnissiah. Titans predate the identification of the Emperor as the Omnissiah, the physical avatar of the Machine God, but they don't necessarily predate the concept of the Omnissiah/Machine God or worship of the same. And we know the Emperor-to-be seeded the religion of Mars long before the Dark Age of Technology by burying the Dragon there, so it's likely the tech-adepts of Mars were influenced to think in quasi-religious terms even when they were theoretically a secular group of scientists and engineers. So it is entirely possible that Titans always had a religious significance, even during the Dark Age.

 Duskweaver wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Titans pre-date "space Jesus".

In this context, "Space Jesus" is the Omnissiah. Titans predate the identification of the Emperor as the Omnissiah, the physical avatar of the Machine God, but they don't necessarily predate the concept of the Omnissiah/Machine God or worship of the same. And we know the Emperor-to-be seeded the religion of Mars long before the Dark Age of Technology by burying the Dragon there, so it's likely the tech-adepts of Mars were influenced to think in quasi-religious terms even when they were theoretically a secular group of scientists and engineers. So it is entirely possible that Titans always had a religious significance, even during the Dark Age.

If you can find a timeline for that I'd be interested. But considering how much of the theological degradation in the Imperium is post-heresy it seems very unlikely that the reasoning behind Titans can be simply reduced to religion.

Edit:
Also to note, the "Dark Age of Technology" was actually a golden age of scientific achievement. So the manufacture of Titans for religious reasons seems bizarre in an age where scientific mindset was so prevalent.

The religion of the Machine God and Titans date from Age of Strife not Dark Age of Technology. When the terraformed environment of Mars began to fail, it was those that respected (eventually worshipping) technology that were able to maintain life support and survive.


The issue of power remains relevant not in an all or nothing "Can tanks mount reactors?". It is more the issue of "Can standard superheavy tanks mount a powerful enough reactor while still remaining below a certain size?". The Storm Blade may have mounted a plasma reactor but it seems it was only just able to power one Titan sized weapon, not multiple. The Shadowsword is written as having an internal combustion plant and having to charge from it and suffering from having to remain immobile while charging and then having a low fire rate. None of these standard superheavies had void shields in addition to their weapons. The Cyclops, Leviathan, Capitol Imperialis, are all even larger block sized vehicles, comparable in size to a Titan.

I would hypothesize that the limits of Imperial plasma technology means plasma reactors of sufficient output to power multiple Titan sized weapons (or a single weapon at reasonable fire rates) and/or void shields requires tracked vehicles approaching Titan scale. The alternative seems to be things like the Shadowsword which have to sacrifice in other areas in order to power their weapon, or the Storm Blade which while having a reactor was certainly not as mobile as for example a Warhound. This suggests that the reactor was not sufficient in output to give it both firepower and high speed. We know already for example that the Imperium has trouble with plasma containment for hand held plasma weapons, while not having such problems with larger reactors like for example starship sized ones.

Iracundus wrote:
The religion of the Machine God and Titans date from Age of Strife not Dark Age of Technology. When the terraformed environment of Mars began to fail, it was those that respected (eventually worshipping) technology that were able to maintain life support and survive.

Well I have it in (possibly older lore) that some Titans date back to the Dark Age of Technology. (Specifically Titan Legions, released 1994. pg. 18)

 Flinty wrote:
Battleships have large calibre weapons, and of course they are the proven pinnacle of all current warfare and are being built in ever larger numbers... or maybe not

Other weapon platforms with larger weapons than Apache's are deployed, however. Nor does our current international climate encourage all-out extermination-level bombardments of major cities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Iracundus wrote:

The issue of power remains relevant not in an all or nothing "Can tanks mount reactors?". It is more the issue of "Can standard superheavy tanks mount a powerful enough reactor while still remaining below a certain size?".

I'm guess I'm not sure why that's an issue. And I think the Stormblade and the Falchion are proof that, yes, a "standard sized" superheavy can mount a plasma reactor and Titan weapon. They may be rarer vehicles, but then again, so are Titans. For the "standard" stuff, there's probably a hundred non-plasma-reactor Baneblade Chassis tanks (or even a thousand) to every Titan.

But I think the overall argument is "Why build Titans over just building a bigger tank?" And my answer is "They do build bigger tanks." and "They also build other tanks with Titan-class weapons already." The Imperium is big and gets to do both.

My answer to "Why build Titans at all?" is "They can be deployed in more places because they have feet and legs rather than treads."

And if the question is "Why not build more bigger-er tanks?" my answer is "Titan-class weapons can already be mounted on Baneblade-chassis vehicles, and most of them can be reliably manufactured and deployed, so there's no need for it." What's better, one big tank with three Volcano Cannons or three smaller tanks with one Volcano Cannon each?

I wish the old-style Stormblade was still a thing. The old Epic unit had not only the Plasma-Blastgun, but a series of one-shot missiles similar to the Manticore, plus another, larger anti-Titan missile.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Iracundus wrote:

The issue of power remains relevant not in an all or nothing "Can tanks mount reactors?". It is more the issue of "Can standard superheavy tanks mount a powerful enough reactor while still remaining below a certain size?".

I'm guess I'm not sure why that's an issue. And I think the Stormblade and the Falchion are proof that, yes, a "standard sized" superheavy can mount a plasma reactor and Titan weapon. They may be rarer vehicles, but then again, so are Titans. For the "standard" stuff, there's probably a hundred non-plasma-reactor Baneblade Chassis tanks (or even a thousand) to every Titan.

But I think the overall argument is "Why build Titans over just building a bigger tank?" And my answer is "They do build bigger tanks." and "They also build other tanks with Titan-class weapons already." The Imperium is big and gets to do both.

My answer to "Why build Titans at all?" is "They can be deployed in more places because they have feet and legs rather than treads."

And if the question is "Why not build more bigger-er tanks?" my answer is "Titan-class weapons can already be mounted on Baneblade-chassis vehicles, and most of them can be reliably manufactured and deployed, so there's no need for it." What's better, one big tank with three Volcano Cannons or three smaller tanks with one Volcano Cannon each?

I wish the old-style Stormblade was still a thing. The old Epic unit had not only the Plasma-Blastgun, but a series of one-shot missiles similar to the Manticore, plus another, larger anti-Titan missile.

The issue is that one of the arguments for tanks over Titans is that tanks can keep a lower target profile. However if the Imperium cannot easily miniaturize reactors of sufficient output, then this tank advantage of lower profile does not exist. A Capitol Imperialis, which we know does have a plasma reactor, has a target profile, as do all the other really big superheavy command vehicles with plasma reactors.

The one "regular sized" superheavy tank with a plasma reactor, the Stormblade, seemingly has a reactor that is not sufficient to power more than one Titan scale weapon, and not sufficient to give it high mobility. All the other Imperial superheavy tanks with a similar relatively low profile are all using internal combustion engines, not plasma reactors. So it seems the Imperium might have trouble making powerful reactors (i.e. more than powerful than the Stormblade's) that are also small enough to cram into a low profile tank chassis.

The FW entry for the Stormblade did attempt to handwave away why the redesign lacks the external missile racks, saying that the racks were removed after too many tanks were lost to secondary explosions when the external missiles were hit by enemy fire.

Iracundus wrote:
The issue is that one of the arguments for tanks over Titans is that tanks can keep a lower target profile. However if the Imperium cannot easily miniaturize reactors of sufficient output, then this tank advantage of lower profile does not exist.

This is wrong. Yes, a superheavy tank with a large reactor is going to be large, but it's still going to be smaller than a titan that has to have the same internal volume for the reactor but also has the profile issues caused by its legs.

The one "regular sized" superheavy tank with a plasma reactor, the Stormblade, seemingly has a reactor that is not sufficient to power more than one Titan scale weapon, and not sufficient to give it high mobility. All the other Imperial superheavy tanks with a similar relatively low profile are all using internal combustion engines, not plasma reactors. So it seems the Imperium might have trouble making powerful reactors (i.e. more than powerful than the Stormblade's) that are also small enough to cram into a low profile tank chassis.

Also the Valdor. It has an internal combustion engine for movement, but its gun is powered by a "neutronic coil arc reactor" and crams Shadowsword-level firepower into a slightly longer LRBT. Yeah, miniaturizing it to that degree means cutting back on shielding, but it's not like a guardsman is expected to live more than a few minutes in battle anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
If your premise is "this fictional universe absolutely must obey by our current incomplete understanding of physics, and any signs that point to things being effective are just propaganda", I think I'd agree it's not worth discussing with you.

This is not about incomplete understanding and gray areas, it's about fundamental rules of geometry and well understood physics. If the mass of an object in 40k is not equal to its volume multiplied by its density, if ground pressure is not equal to the mass of an object divided by the surface area in contact with the ground, if force does not equal mass times acceleration, etc, then you have a world in which nothing whatsoever makes sense. You literally can't comment on anything involving 40k because nothing follows any kind of comprehensible order, and nothing we know about the real world can be used to understand that universe. And yet, by attempting to argue from a position that we can use understanding of the real world to understand 40k with comments like "a titan's height gives it a line of sight advantage", you concede that I am right and we can use real-world physics. After all, if you can make an argument that 40k doesn't obey our understanding of physics when it comes to a titan having a worse surface area to volume ratio than a tank and therefore weaker armor then how do you know that being taller gives a line of sight advantage? Maybe being taller makes it more difficult to see over the horizon, and the position of greatest visibility is to put all of your guns at ground level?

You can't necessarily fall back on real world physics because the Imperium has technology that oppose those physics, a la suspensors. Ground-pressure issues solved.

 Insectum7 wrote:
You can't necessarily fall back on real world physics because the Imperium has technology that oppose those physics, a la suspensors. Ground-pressure issues solved.

Except, again, that technology will be even better on a tank because it's starting from a lower level of ground pressure. And if you're going to assume that these suspensors completely negate its mass and reduce ground pressure to zero then why bother with legs at all? Why not build a hover tank?

My 2 cents:
There's really no reason to give Titans only 2 legs since those are a major weakness. Aside from being a massive failure point with no redundancies, walking with only two legs presents a balance issue since you only have one point of contact with the ground at any one time. If you really need to step over something, at least provide 4 legs.


Or just do this:


I mean, there's nothing stopping us from replacing the legs of titans with tracks to keep the height advantage if we need it. Plus, I'd hate to be the guy that lost a titan in mud cuz its feet got stuck.

At the end of the day though, people aren't purely pragmatic. If someone wants to make a bipedal titan and can do it, you can bet it'll get made. So while a tank is more efficient, a titan is more of a symbol, and that's still important in war (esp in 40k). So while the Titan sacrifices overall utility, it becomes a focal point for imperial propaganda. I did enjoy the fact that the Tau just used space ships to shoot the titans cuz they ain't got time fo dat. It really contrasted the pragmatism of the Tau versus the spectacle of the Imperium.

The Capitol Imperialis has a similarly if not higher target profile than a Titan. It doesn't seem to have any advantage whatsoever in terms of profile. What seems to end up happening if the Imperium uses an equivalently sized reactor is you end up with either a Titan sized tracked unit with a plasma reactor, or a Titan sized bipedal machine with a plasma reactor, both with equivalent profile. Basically if one keeps other parameters equal, it seems at least in 40K within the limits of the Imperium's decaying state of technology, there seems to be little difference in profile.

Again things like the Valdor prove the point rather than disprove. A dangerously unstable reactor (even more so than a "standard" plasma reactor) crammed into a hull suggests that the Imperium cannot achieve high performance at that scale without having to sacrifice in other aspects. So far there have been examples of sacrifices in output and safety/stability. It seems to be a choice of:

Pick 2:
1. Size
2. Power output
3. Safety/stability

A Titan seems to pick 2 and 3 at the expense of reactor size. A Stormblade seems to pick 1 and 3. A Valdor (though its reactor is arguably not strictly speaking a plasma reactor) seems to pick 1 and 2.

I am not necessarily arguing Titans make sense, but that there may be in-universe technology limitations that might at least partially account for what the Imperium does.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
You can't necessarily fall back on real world physics because the Imperium has technology that oppose those physics, a la suspensors. Ground-pressure issues solved.

Except, again, that technology will be even better on a tank because it's starting from a lower level of ground pressure. And if you're going to assume that these suspensors completely negate its mass and reduce ground pressure to zero then why bother with legs at all? Why not build a hover tank?

I don't assume they completely negate mass. We also know the Imperium hasn't mastered hover technology, and it's use is very limited.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
You can't necessarily fall back on real world physics because the Imperium has technology that oppose those physics, a la suspensors. Ground-pressure issues solved.

Except, again, that technology will be even better on a tank because it's starting from a lower level of ground pressure. And if you're going to assume that these suspensors completely negate its mass and reduce ground pressure to zero then why bother with legs at all? Why not build a hover tank?

Dude, again, you're arguing physics and reality in a world where "drive this tank closer so I can hit them with my sword!" is a thing. I agree completely, but again we're talking rule of cool here.
You would prefer the Tau in Epic that use their landers as superheavies, and eldar supersized skimmers.

Now eldar do have the ultimate titan that literally run and fly...

I'm reminded of that conversation in The First Heretic where Argal Tal explains how the heathens use abominable AI while the Imperial robots use blessed machine spirits.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
You can't necessarily fall back on real world physics because the Imperium has technology that oppose those physics, a la suspensors. Ground-pressure issues solved.

Except, again, that technology will be even better on a tank because it's starting from a lower level of ground pressure. And if you're going to assume that these suspensors completely negate its mass and reduce ground pressure to zero then why bother with legs at all? Why not build a hover tank?

Anchors?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
You can't necessarily fall back on real world physics because the Imperium has technology that oppose those physics, a la suspensors. Ground-pressure issues solved.

Except, again, that technology will be even better on a tank because it's starting from a lower level of ground pressure. And if you're going to assume that these suspensors completely negate its mass and reduce ground pressure to zero then why bother with legs at all? Why not build a hover tank?

Dude, again, you're arguing physics and reality in a world where "drive this tank closer so I can hit them with my sword!" is a thing. I agree completely, but again we're talking rule of cool here.
You would prefer the Tau in Epic that use their landers as superheavies, and eldar supersized skimmers.

Now eldar do have the ultimate titan that literally run and fly...

Well, really the situation is something in between. In order to answer the OP we're dealing with real-world physics/tactics with a few caveats provided by fictional technologies and situtions. Ground Pressure --> Suspensors, Armor --> Void Shields, land assault because of anti-bombardment fields and ground-based anti-air defenses, and giant weapons because the Imperium fights against existential threats that warrant total devastation. I prefer to try and support the rule-of-cool with established in-universe reasoning.

 Insectum7 wrote:
If you can find a timeline for that I'd be interested. But considering how much of the theological degradation in the Imperium is post-heresy it seems very unlikely that the reasoning behind Titans can be simply reduced to religion.
Edit:
Also to note, the "Dark Age of Technology" was actually a golden age of scientific achievement. So the manufacture of Titans for religious reasons seems bizarre in an age where scientific mindset was so prevalent.

The HH novel Mechanicum implies that both the drive to scientific advancement and the veneration (eventually full-blown worship) of machines on Mars are products of the Dragon's influence on the Martian human population going right back to the original settlers. And that the Emperor put the Dragon there deliberately for that purpose.

I'm not saying the first Titans were a conscious effort to build idols to the Machine God. I'm saying the influence of the Dragon of Mars was already there, and might conceivably have encouraged the scientists and engineers of Mars to do things that were not entirely logical/rational from a scientific/materialism standpoint, long before they morphed into an actual religious order during the Age of Strife. That the idea of giant humanoid fighting engines might have seemed more attractive to them than giant tracked vehicles, for reasons they themselves didn't understand and in apparent defiance of purely practical considerations, because an alien star-god's contagious dreams were the ultimate source of that idea.

 Duskweaver wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
If you can find a timeline for that I'd be interested. But considering how much of the theological degradation in the Imperium is post-heresy it seems very unlikely that the reasoning behind Titans can be simply reduced to religion.
Edit:
Also to note, the "Dark Age of Technology" was actually a golden age of scientific achievement. So the manufacture of Titans for religious reasons seems bizarre in an age where scientific mindset was so prevalent.

The HH novel Mechanicum implies that both the drive to scientific advancement and the veneration (eventually full-blown worship) of machines on Mars are products of the Dragon's influence on the Martian human population going right back to the original settlers. And that the Emperor put the Dragon there deliberately for that purpose.

I'm not saying the first Titans were a conscious effort to build idols to the Machine God. I'm saying the influence of the Dragon of Mars was already there, and might conceivably have encouraged the scientists and engineers of Mars to do things that were not entirely logical/rational from a scientific/materialism standpoint, long before they morphed into an actual religious order during the Age of Strife. That the idea of giant humanoid fighting engines might have seemed more attractive to them than giant tracked vehicles, for reasons they themselves didn't understand and in apparent defiance of purely practical considerations, because an alien star-god's contagious dreams were the ultimate source of that idea.

Lets not forget the AI Titan (corrupted by chaos) either or the very recent example of a Titan being taken over by a man of iron and wiping out a large Dark Mechanicum army, AI driven titans changes the whole meaning of the machines from avatars to literal incarnations of the machine god, a pilot may have been added at a later stage after the AI rebellion to keep them in check.

 Formosa wrote:

 Duskweaver wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
If you can find a timeline for that I'd be interested. But considering how much of the theological degradation in the Imperium is post-heresy it seems very unlikely that the reasoning behind Titans can be simply reduced to religion.
Edit:
Also to note, the "Dark Age of Technology" was actually a golden age of scientific achievement. So the manufacture of Titans for religious reasons seems bizarre in an age where scientific mindset was so prevalent.

The HH novel Mechanicum implies that both the drive to scientific advancement and the veneration (eventually full-blown worship) of machines on Mars are products of the Dragon's influence on the Martian human population going right back to the original settlers. And that the Emperor put the Dragon there deliberately for that purpose.

I'm not saying the first Titans were a conscious effort to build idols to the Machine God. I'm saying the influence of the Dragon of Mars was already there, and might conceivably have encouraged the scientists and engineers of Mars to do things that were not entirely logical/rational from a scientific/materialism standpoint, long before they morphed into an actual religious order during the Age of Strife. That the idea of giant humanoid fighting engines might have seemed more attractive to them than giant tracked vehicles, for reasons they themselves didn't understand and in apparent defiance of purely practical considerations, because an alien star-god's contagious dreams were the ultimate source of that idea.

Lets not forget the AI Titan (corrupted by chaos) either or the very recent example of a Titan being taken over by a man of iron and wiping out a large Dark Mechanicum army, AI driven titans changes the whole meaning of the machines from avatars to literal incarnations of the machine god, a pilot may have been added at a later stage after the AI rebellion to keep them in check.

which makes a lot of sense given how the fluff always maintains how strong the machine spirit of a titian is, even normal titans give me the impression of a dog straining at the leash

One advantageTitans seem to have is speed. Look at the movement characteristics of Titans, they are considerably faster than Imperials tanks, specially the Warhound that has one insane running speed.

This probably violates some physics, but well they are pretty much avatars of the space robot Jesus in 40k, they do not care about physics.

I think they care enough about physics to show how it's subordinate to the glory of the Machine God.

 Duskweaver wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
If you can find a timeline for that I'd be interested. But considering how much of the theological degradation in the Imperium is post-heresy it seems very unlikely that the reasoning behind Titans can be simply reduced to religion.
Edit:
Also to note, the "Dark Age of Technology" was actually a golden age of scientific achievement. So the manufacture of Titans for religious reasons seems bizarre in an age where scientific mindset was so prevalent.

The HH novel Mechanicum implies that both the drive to scientific advancement and the veneration (eventually full-blown worship) of machines on Mars are products of the Dragon's influence on the Martian human population going right back to the original settlers. And that the Emperor put the Dragon there deliberately for that purpose.

I'm not saying the first Titans were a conscious effort to build idols to the Machine God. I'm saying the influence of the Dragon of Mars was already there, and might conceivably have encouraged the scientists and engineers of Mars to do things that were not entirely logical/rational from a scientific/materialism standpoint, long before they morphed into an actual religious order during the Age of Strife. That the idea of giant humanoid fighting engines might have seemed more attractive to them than giant tracked vehicles, for reasons they themselves didn't understand and in apparent defiance of purely practical considerations, because an alien star-god's contagious dreams were the ultimate source of that idea.

That's some interesting background and theory, thanks for posting. (Also definitely a far more nuanced take than "space Jesus said so"). It's fun to think Titans might have come by their form via almost subconscious influence of a C'tan god-being, similar to the background where the Nightbringer is the cause of the fear of death. At the same time it's sometimes hard to take the HH novels as canon, so I don't know how strong the implications are. It's a reasonable direction to add to the pot, though.

It also does tie up an interesting point when it comes to the imperiums obsession with skulls, almost like they cannot help it, then you consider that all tech is made by the mechanicum and it's THEY that are the ones obsessed with putting skulls on everything, my let theory is that as the dragons dreams influenced the machine cult it's memories of the necrons and their obsession with death later influenced the mechanicus, there obsession with the flesh being weak was also the obsession of the necrontyr, the invention of AI was built upon the ideas influenced by the dragon and because of that they would always rebel on their masters as the dragon remembers being betrayed, sod all to back any of this up, I just like the thought experiment.

That's a great spin, though personally I go with the idea that the skull represents the face of the corpse emperor watching over humanity!

I suppose the two ideas aren't mutually exclusive though...

I would imagine titans are rather good when you both do not agree upon a sett amount of points to buy units for. You know. Like a real battle wiymthin the fictional setting.

Also, if you can do the same work with fewer humans, but more of other reasorces, it is more humane.

In the immortal response of Mekboy Ushbek to his Warboss Dragnatz question of "Oi Mekboy, Wot is dat zoggin' thing?" upon seeing their first Titan in action "Dunno boss, but it's ded killy."

That's exactly what Titans are used for. Being ded killy. Ask Zorgob (the Squished) what a Titan is used for. Ushbek knew what he was zoggin' talking about. So did General Veers.

(In my 1990 Rogue Trader era Waaargh Orks book Ushbek says "it's ded great" - either way Ushbek gets it.)

I predict we're gonna have walkers in our military arsenal, within these next 100 years. They're not going to be the lumbering giants like the titans of 40k. They're gonna be fast moving, able to traverse the same types of terrain that humans can. Short of climbing a rock face. They're gonna be what Warhounds are, absolutely breathtaking speed and devastating firepower, short of a MBT. I think what they're gonna look like are gun platforms mounted on a pair of oversized ostrich legs. Maybe even with a full suite of optics, making sure that the enemy can run, but not hide. Maybe even a sonar system, to detect land mines and IEDs. They can just as easily operate in close support of infantry as well as armored units without sacrificing speed and mobility either way. In fact, they'll extend the range at which infantry and any mechanized unit can project force.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSjKoEva5bg

Also, as others have mentioned, I imagine titans do remarkably well in sieges. In fact that might be what they were originally designed for. They would make great siege towers.

Insectum7 wrote:(Also definitely a far more nuanced take than "space Jesus said so").

Well, "Space Jesus said so" is typical Peregrine being Peregrine, but I don't think he's wrong. The point remains that it's difficult for us 21st-century secular types to really grok how people living in a millennia-old theocracy would think. And some of that religious or quasi-religious thinking might have been in play even before Mars and the wider Imperium went full-on theocracy.

Also, one of the assumptions/conceits of the 40K setting is that 'modern' secular materialism is an abberation. Humans in 40K aren't just indoctrinated into religious fanaticism. It is their natural state, so much so that even the Emperor couldn't put an end to it and was ultimately forced to merely co-opt it.

At the same time it's sometimes hard to take the HH novels as canon

Oh, I completely agree. I wish most of the HH stuff wasn't canon and had never been written. But that ship has not merely sailed, it has landed on bright new shores and brought plague and death and suffering to a formerly pristine New World. We just have to make the best of it now.

Formosa wrote:the imperiums obsession with skulls

Jes Goodwin has stated that the skulls that are merely decorative are representations of the Emperor's face, because the modern Imperium is a galaxy-spanning death cult.

But those skulls that are seemingly integrated into computer systems (e.g. on the interiors of some of the more recent terrain kits) are there because they house the re-purposed human brains that the Imperium uses in preference to the silicon-chip-based computing that is associated with Abominable Intelligence.

Dandelion wrote:
My 2 cents:
There's really no reason to give Titans only 2 legs since those are a major weakness. Aside from being a massive failure point with no redundancies, walking with only two legs presents a balance issue since you only have one point of contact with the ground at any one time. If you really need to step over something, at least provide 4 legs.

Spoiler:

Or just do this:

Spoiler:

I mean, there's nothing stopping us from replacing the legs of titans with tracks to keep the height advantage if we need it. Plus, I'd hate to be the guy that lost a titan in mud cuz its feet got stuck.

At the end of the day though, people aren't purely pragmatic. If someone wants to make a bipedal titan and can do it, you can bet it'll get made. So while a tank is more efficient, a titan is more of a symbol, and that's still important in war (esp in 40k). So while the Titan sacrifices overall utility, it becomes a focal point for imperial propaganda. I did enjoy the fact that the Tau just used space ships to shoot the titans cuz they ain't got time fo dat. It really contrasted the pragmatism of the Tau versus the spectacle of the Imperium.

There are four legged titans (like the one in the beast arises series, can't remember which book but it's after they find Vulkan). They're very rare though, probably because they're already warlord sized and need a lot more resources.

 Duskweaver wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:(Also definitely a far more nuanced take than "space Jesus said so").

Well, "Space Jesus said so" is typical Peregrine being Peregrine, but I don't think he's wrong. The point remains that it's difficult for us 21st-century secular types to really grok how people living in a millennia-old theocracy would think. And some of that religious or quasi-religious thinking might have been in play even before Mars and the wider Imperium went full-on theocracy.

Also, one of the assumptions/conceits of the 40K setting is that 'modern' secular materialism is an abberation. Humans in 40K aren't just indoctrinated into religious fanaticism. It is their natural state, so much so that even the Emperor couldn't put an end to it and was ultimately forced to merely co-opt it.

Oh I agree with all that, but again in this case it appears that Titans were around long before any of the heavy theocracy. So . . . did Titans exist solely because the Emperor-told/Dragon-influenced the Mechanicum possibly 15,000 years before the birth of the Imperium? That remains a really hard claim to prove out, imo.

I also find it distracting from the more interesting part of the conversation, which is: Is there an in-universe strategic space for Titans to function/work?

 Duskweaver wrote:

At the same time it's sometimes hard to take the HH novels as canon

Oh, I completely agree. I wish most of the HH stuff wasn't canon and had never been written. But that ship has not merely sailed, it has landed on bright new shores and brought plague and death and suffering to a formerly pristine New World. We just have to make the best of it now.

Aye. It is what it is. Thankfully they haven't gone and said that a bunch of the older lore is necessarily untrue either, so we get to pick and choose interpretation to at least some extent. Which is nice, it leaves the universe sprawling and a bit richer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LumenPraebeo wrote:
I predict we're gonna have walkers in our military arsenal, within these next 100 years.

Honestly, probably waaay sooner then that. Those things are advancing fast.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Honestly, probably waaay sooner then that. Those things are advancing fast.

No, within 100. They still have to solve the battery problem. No battery = no exosuits, no walkers

 LumenPraebeo wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Honestly, probably waaay sooner then that. Those things are advancing fast.

No, within 100. They still have to solve the battery problem. No battery = no exosuits, no walkers

I'm pretty sure I've seen gas operated walkers, batteries are advancing pretty quickly iirc, and there could be uses for disposeable/reuseable fast-deploy units that aren't expected to last too long anyways.

 Insectum7 wrote:
in this case it appears that Titans were around long before any of the heavy theocracy.

It's worth remembering that this is a pretty recent retcon. Originally, all Titans were from the Age of Strife or later and explicitly described as products of the religion of the Cult Mechanicum (I just checked this in my copies of Codex Titanicus from Epic: Titan Legions and Codex Imperialis from 2nd edition 40K). AFAIK, it's only in the HH novels that any Titans have been described as pre-Cult. So we're left patching together an explanation using the more venerable (3rd edition 40K IIRC) retcon that places the Dragon of Mars as the inspiration for (most? all?) Martian technology and culture. (The idea that the Emperor put the Dragon there is more recent; originally, the Dragon just went to sleep on Mars at the end of the War in Heaven, but its influence on the Mechanicum was already apparent in the earlier fluff.)

So . . . did Titans exist solely because the Emperor-told/Dragon-influenced the Mechanicum possibly 15,000 years before the birth of the Imperium? That remains a really hard claim to prove out, imo.

We can't prove anything. It's all speculation based on a conflicting mess of retcons upon retcons. But that mess is what GW/BL have turned their IP into, unfortunately.

I also find it distracting from the more interesting part of the conversation, which is: Is there an in-universe strategic space for Titans to function/work?

Wading through lakes / shallow seas / dust oceans springs to mind. Harder (though not impossible) to do that with a similar-sized tracked vehicle. And Mars had lakes and seas during the Age of Technology, before it lost its terraforming in the Age of Strife, if we're acknowledging the existence of Titans back then.

It's still a case of reaching for post hoc justifications for a problem created by GW's misjudged retcon, though, and therefore not a very satisfying explanation IMO.

 Duskweaver wrote:

Jes Goodwin has stated that the skulls that are merely decorative are representations of the Emperor's face, because the modern Imperium is a galaxy-spanning death cult.
.

and really when you step back and think of it isn't THAT odd. I mean the symbol of worship in christinaity is a Crucifix, which was basicly a Roman tortue/execution device. I'm sure if someone hypotheticly was seeing that without any of the cultura context, they'd think it a damn strange thing too

 Duskweaver wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
in this case it appears that Titans were around long before any of the heavy theocracy.

It's worth remembering that this is a pretty recent retcon. Originally, all Titans were from the Age of Strife or later and explicitly described as products of the religion of the Cult Mechanicum (I just checked this in my copies of Codex Titanicus from Epic: Titan Legions and Codex Imperialis from 2nd edition 40K). AFAIK, it's only in the HH novels that any Titans have been described as pre-Cult.

My source is actually the Codex Titannicus or Rulebook from the 90's Epic release. Check the section describing the Warlord Titan. I'd give the page number but I'm away from the books.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Duskweaver wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
in this case it appears that Titans were around long before any of the heavy theocracy.

It's worth remembering that this is a pretty recent retcon. Originally, all Titans were from the Age of Strife or later and explicitly described as products of the religion of the Cult Mechanicum (I just checked this in my copies of Codex Titanicus from Epic: Titan Legions and Codex Imperialis from 2nd edition 40K). AFAIK, it's only in the HH novels that any Titans have been described as pre-Cult.

My source is actually the Codex Titannicus or Rulebook from the 90's Epic release. Check the section describing the Warlord Titan. I'd give the page number but I'm away from the books.

Its funny as the 40k lore has been extremely consistent over the years with a couple of bigger retcons, it generally comes down to people not knowing the difference between filling out the fluff in more detail and an actual retcon, necrons was a retcon, the Horus heresy novel series is a filling in of detail.

^some, yes. Although in my view some of the "filling in of detail" hurts the setting more than helps it. I'd rather that much of the heresey have stayed more mysterious.

I'm curious as of which phase of the Necron lore you are referring to. The 3rd edition book or the 5th

 Insectum7 wrote:
^some, yes. Although in my view some of the "filling in of detail" hurts the setting more than helps it. I'd rather that much of the heresey have stayed more mysterious.

I'm curious as of which phase of the Necron lore you are referring to. The 3rd edition book or the 5th

Mainly the 5th one, the 3rd one was more a step to the side, the 5th one was a total reboot, which I dont really mind, at least its better than dropping an entire race with zero explanation or lore reason like the squats, and no the tyranids did not eat them before anyone says it.