Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Chopxsticks wrote:
Do I recall a rumor that the models had magnet holes in them already? Is it a thing to swap out weapon loadouts?

That is confirmed, yes, for that very purpose. Can't recall the exact size now, but it was reasonable and easy to use.

JWBS wrote:

 KTG17 wrote:

 Overread wrote:
@Ktg17
In the old Titan Legions managing a titan was micro managing it. You had a reactor and power per turn which you had to allocate to different areas of its body (legs, weapons, head etc..) which would let you make attacks, move, boost performance, repair, run shields etc...

Yes, for the Imperator but not everyone else (the Mega Gargant has its own rules). But the Warlords were given orders like everyone else. It wasn't until they started taking damage did you have to worry about specifics. Plus while that model was the biggest on the board, it was still small enough to not physically dominate the board. Plus with all the other vehicles, infantry, etc, there was a lot to move and create tactics with. This game is going to have what? 6-12 models per side? Essentially everyone is just going to move those to the center of the board and blow each other up at point blank range. And being as tall as they are, shouldn't take too long to accomplish.

Do you not think we'll be getting squadrons of shadowsords and the like? I never played Epic but I loved those models and the idea of them, moving slowly, setting up firing zones, bringing down giants that crossed their range (but like I say I never played, maybe they were crap ingame).

To begin with, no we don't. Designers have repeatedly said they want it to focus on titan combat. And yes, micro managing is in much larger focus here (which is fine) with only several models in the game (which is also entirely fine), so let's chill for the time being and wait for it. Perhaps they'll add tanks later on, perhaps not, as long as they'll stay true to the intended focus on titans that's fine for me.

Regarding game size, in the WD preview James Hewitt answers the question by saying that the full game usually includes a couple of titans and few banners of knights per side. So worry not, the Grand Master will see use in its entirety and Natfka can piss the right off as like the baseless rumourmongers that they always are.

Edit: more accurate quote: "four or five titans and maybe a banner of knights".

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 TwilightSparkles wrote:
Natfka have posted an anon rumour that suggests the Grand Master box is not worth the money as you only need one Warlord per force typically..

That's a bizarre criticism.

I'm sure that most Ultramarine players don't need the Deathguard that come with Dark Imperium. Can't imagine there are many slots for Sigmarines in a Nighthaunt army either. And last time I checked you couldn't take Goliath gangers in an Escher gang.

The box is designed for two players. Of course it's going to have more than what one player needs.

Except that everything within can be used by one person without any hitch too, moreso here than usually, so it is better value for single persons too. Also, that Natfka rumour is just bogus that contradicts what the actual designer of the game has said, so no worries.

But yeah, that line of criticism is very weird. As if people wouldn't buy more models than they'd need at one game ever.

 lagoon83 wrote:
So when the game was being designed, the plan was for resin titans, which would be kinda pricey, so a lot of time went into making sure people could play a game with whatever Titans they wanted (up to a maniple). After all, it would suck if people got really excited, spend a load of time and money on a Reaver and four Warhounds only to discover that you *suck* if you don't take at least one Warlord. The game was tested at various levels - at one point, 5 Warhounds vs 5 Warlords was tested. The warhounds lost, naturally, but they gave a good account of themselves.

At least, that's what I heard.

 zedmeister wrote:
Eh? I'm planning to have multiple huge legions. I've got 6 legions I'd like to do at the least with multiple Warlords. The grandmaster box is my first purchase.

Knew we could count on you for the correct answer.

That's great to hear, never hurts to have flexibility in the game. Judging by the White Dwarf report, the game play itself seems tasty, my BFG side is tingling with joy to have the smaller nimbler knights run rings around cumbersome titans like that.

James, can you tell us anything about the distribution of weapon profiles in the game or do we have to wait until the release? I'm very curious as to how different roles and shapes are spread around the bodies, like what type of weapons use the flame template, can knight guns do anything but plink away at some void shields, how much synergy you built into combinations of shield-strippers and hull killers and so forth?

(And most importantly, will the ursus claw be awesome? 'Cause it's awesome.)

 lagoon83 wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
That's great to hear, never hurts to have flexibility in the game. Judging by the White Dwarf report, the game play itself seems tasty, my BFG side is tingling with joy to have the smaller nimbler knights run rings around cumbersome titans like that.

Yeah, BFG definitely had some influence on the rules!

Can you elaborate on this, as far as general design goes? The fire arcs, turning angles, different armour values and such bear a similar shape but it would be interesting to hear how analyzing that rule set lead to some decisions made here.

 lagoon83 wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
James, can you tell us anything about the distribution of weapon profiles in the game or do we have to wait until the release? I'm very curious as to how different roles and shapes are spread around the bodies, like what type of weapons use the flame template, can knight guns do anything but plink away at some void shields, how much synergy you built into combinations of shield-strippers and hull killers and so forth?

(And most importantly, will the ursus claw be awesome? 'Cause it's awesome.)

I ain't saying nothing! (Except that yeah, synergy is something that was very carefully considered, tested and worked on...)

C'mon man, vaguebook us a little

It's just a few weeks to the release anyway...

 lagoon83 wrote:

Every weapon has its place, and positioning and manoeuvring are vital to using them well. Anyone who ignores Knights is a fool. There you go

Such enlightenment, much info

But really, it would be very interesting to hear designer commentary once the release is out and you can talk about it more freely, like how weapon profiles were chosen or how their carriers' intended roles in the background affected that.

Are you at liberty to hint at what sort of expansions we could expect to come? Campaign packs with missions and post-game tracking, weapon add-ons, titan variants with the same basic body, expanded battlefield effects?

 lagoon83 wrote:
I've already said too much! Ask me in a month or so.

Don't worry 'bout the bounty hunters coming to silence you, we'll take care of them

JWBS wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

JWBS wrote:
Can you draw any conclusions (confident or not) about the price of AT, given that it's 18 sprues?

The number of sprues isn't especially relevant. The number of unique new sprues is more important and the volume they expect to sell is the biggest factor.

Also worth noting that cardstock is really expensive so there is a big cost in the command tiles and tokens (and in the necromunda tiles) which you should consider when comparing boxes.

So why not just stick to plastic terrain? I'd argue the only advantage that card has is the lack of painting required. Their recent plastics, even their older ones, look great (though I've never seen one in the flesh). I did buy a couple of the card 40k buildings in the 90s (Bastion, Firebase etc) and they were ok for the time, but certainly inferior to the modern plastics IMO.

http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?26570-40K-Expansions-Card-Buildings

The terrain is plastic. The command terminals are cardstock and there is a bunch of those in the set, which take money in the same sense that a properly made boardgame costs money.

GoatboyBeta wrote:
If all goes to plan I'll be getting the GM set and an extra box of buildings. I'll get a few battles under my belt before deciding if I should go for a full on cityscape. Reading the bat rep in WD, overly dense terrain may not be such a good thing for this game with the Titans having limited turns and restricted fire arcs.

On the contrary, that is the thing I'm most excited for. If I've understood correctly, the game also includes optional rules for destroying scenery.

It would be pretty badass to play in a sprawling cityscape, which gets blasted apart throughout the game when players get frustrated with those restricted firing lanes

Right, some fellas here seem to have weirdly high standards I'm pretty sure very few games ever have met.

Why do people claim you can't play with what's in the box? Main designer has explicitly said the game is designed to offer play even with one model via the command terminals since the original plan was to go with superduper expensive resin models. The GME-box offers 8 models, two of which are Warlords. That is plenty to play with.

Why do people lament so much that there is no other titans? They will be out in a month or two, this year anyway. How frikkn' many matches of this specific game do you intend to play in those two or three months that you can already claim the game getting stale in that time? One every evening? Ain't nobody got time for that.

Why do people moan so much about the lack of physical weapon models? Those will be out in a few months too, probably after the two lighter titans, and the models have explicitly been said to contain places for magnets so you can assemble them with volcano cannons at this point and then change to upgrades / conversions later on should you wish to. The rules for other weapons are already in the box.

Why do people lament the box as a bad starter? It is objectively better than other starters in the history of ever because it can either produce two armies or one larger one.

Okay, I get some might not like the price or the terrain that inflates that a bit, but sheesh. At least try to get your facts straight with other gripes and chill out. In EVERY OTHER respect than the price, this set is great.

 Togusa wrote:
I am cautiously optimistic about this project. The problem that I see, is that while I think the models look great, and I may buy a couple of them in the next year, I won't buy the starter.

If I were to play a game like this, I'd want Eldar titans, and that to me is the crux of why I am cautiously optimistic about this game. Right now, they're cool models to collect and paint, but as for flare and fun. I'm just not seeing it yet.

The sad part to me is that they have stated on record that if the game does well they will add 40K Xenos and so on later through updates and expansions. But so far, all I am reading about the game is doom and gloom, whining and complaints, and that doesn't bode well for the future.

I guess this project might just be a little bit too ambitious.

Depends on where one reads, though. Dakka is the resident haven for whining and complaining, with the occasional interesting critical analysis mixed in there, whereas in many other communities there's sparked interest that might flare when the game gets out and we'll have more exposure to it. The price is a bit hefty, yes, but I'm not too pessimistic about that when one considers the very limited need for models in the game. Sure, a hundred or two stings, but with less need to expand it'll still be within bounds of reason. I know I've bought just rule books and tested games with proxy models before going further in, no reason people couldn't do the same here as there is indeed a modelless rules box available.

JWBS wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Right, some fellas here seem to have weirdly high standards I'm pretty sure very few games ever have met.

Why do people claim you can't play with what's in the box? Main designer has explicitly said the game is designed to offer play even with one model via the command terminals since the original plan was to go with superduper expensive resin models. The GME-box offers 8 models, two of which are Warlords. That is plenty to play with.

Why do people lament so much that there is no other titans? They will be out in a month or two, this year anyway. How frikkn' many matches of this specific game do you intend to play in those two or three months that you can already claim the game getting stale in that time? One every evening? Ain't nobody got time for that.

Why do people moan so much about the lack of physical weapon models? Those will be out in a few months too, probably after the two lighter titans, and the models have explicitly been said to contain places for magnets so you can assemble them with volcano cannons at this point and then change to upgrades / conversions later on should you wish to. The rules for other weapons are already in the box.

Why do people lament the box as a bad starter? It is objectively better than other starters in the history of ever because it can either produce two armies or one larger one.

Okay, I get some might not like the price or the terrain that inflates that a bit, but sheesh. At least try to get your facts straight with other gripes and chill out. In EVERY OTHER respect than the price, this set is great.

You talk about facts after an entirely subjective diatribe.

- Most people don't "Think" that's plenty to play with ("Think " - not "Know", as you seem to know. Fact.)
- I want to know the prices so that I'll be able to decide whether or not to buy the main box
- Why the hell should I have to magnetise anything?
- "Subjectively" - in your opinion - the best starter. I won't go into the reasons I disagree because my reasons are "Subjective"
- In ALMOST EVERY OTHER respect (The atmosphere the game evokes, the aesthetic of the models) I like the box. Please at least try to get your opinions straight and relax.

Sorry if I sounded snide, I just find some of these complaints somewhat silly. Complaining about the price isn't silly, everyone has their own financial situation which may or may not permit them to indulge in such an expensive box.

But regarding facts, I don't think there's too much subjectivity in my original post.

- Main designer has said even one let's you play meaningfully. Two titans and half a dozen knights are plenty, solidly in the "normal" game category instead of "small skirmish". This is also supported by warlords costing what, 400-500~ish points with weapons (as seen in the command terminals) and "small skirmish" being well under 1000 points (as seen in one rule book teaser page). The box is like getting a 1500 points army for 40k in a box. That is plenty for a starter box, unless you prefer apocalypse-sized games as your normal fare.
- Seriously, no-one but those who game professionally has time to play themselves bored before the other titans are out. Wanting to know the prices is cool, but wanting everything immediately instead of appreciating GW's release procedure for a game that burst in their radar from pretty much zero (FW only resin release and stuff) is a bit petty.
- Of course you don't have to magnetize if you don't want to, but that is clearly their chosen route. Get an already pretty packed sprue out in the release and expand from there, just like they've succesfully done with Necromunda.
- No, I'm referring to the starter being better than normal starters in an abstract manner because it is. Normally you get rules, accessories and two forces in a starter. Here you get rules, accessories and the option to make either one or two forces from this starter. That is objectively better, because you get more options. Subjective opinion plays no role here.
- Those are the facts to which I refer. People are well within their rights to think the box is not good for them because X, Y and Z, but in these respects I don't really see too much problems with it except what everyone is willing to pay or not and how many might skip it because the paywall up front is too high. Do I wish it was lower? Sure.

 KTG17 wrote:

Macrossmartin wrote:
This game is really bringing out the worst in some people, it seems. Or rather, the price and / or the policies applied by GW that led to it. I'm seeing some nasty exchanges between pro and anti camps out there on the interwebs.

I'd link to some from an AT FB group I'd joined - but I was banned for suggesting people have a right to express themselves, and it'd be nice if we all got along for a change.

I'm still in the market for this, now that the wave-motion gun-like blast of sticker-shock is beginning to echo off into the distance. But I can understand why many are pulling the plug.

My big concern is if this backlash will leave the game stillborn. Hopefully my fears will prove ill-founded, but I do wonder if GW have really missed the gaming community's vibe on this one.

On slightly less speculative matters - do we have a release date for weapons upgrade sets? And what can we expect to see in such a set?

This is going to have the effect I was fearing. Looking at the size of the minis, and how little movement there appears in the mock ups, it looks like a game with minimal movement and therefore tactics. So this means peeps are paying a lot for a game that will lose its novelty pretty quickly, and when everyone is tired of moving their units to the center of the board to duke it out, the game will collect dust.

I have been hoping there would be an expansion to this to at least include Space Marines down the road, but I just don't see that happening. I can only imagine what those would cost too. I had sticker shock when Epic 40k came out, and it was $10 for what was essentially 2 of the same size sprues that came 5 to a pack for $15 for SM2/TL.

What a shame. I just can't believe GW can't understand what made Epic so great in the first place. AT was great, but it was the mini Space Marines and Land Raiders that kicked down the door.

Since when has there not been movement? The latest White Dwarf has knights running around a Reaver to take it down by taking advantage of their greater mobility, we know that your guns gain more Strength when you fire at the side or rear of your target and so forth. If you're referring to the stream, that had two Warlords with volcano cannons blasting each other apart, I agree they stayed quite put. But that I think comes down to the ever present issue: terrain. Put more terrain on the table and have a proper city to fight in. While I agree that a Warlord could well loom over most buildings, the smaller titans and knights definitely should be able to hide behind terrain and emphasize their mobility. That's the way to good games.

Also, objectives and missions are a thing, like the main designer of the game has said even in this very thread. Duking it out in the middle is not the expected outcome for most matches.

And once more, this has nothing to do with Epic. It is not that they don't understand what made it great in its own right, it is that they wanted to make a different game. This isn't Epic. It was never meant to be Epic. It may someday expand towards Epic, but it is about titans and GW has been crystal clear on that matter from the very beginning.

 KTG17 wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Since when has there not been movement? The latest White Dwarf has knights running around a Reaver to take it down by taking advantage of their greater mobility, we know that your guns gain more Strength when you fire at the side or rear of your target and so forth.

The bigger the models on a gaming board = less room to move.

Technically, yes. However, given that there will only be from two to maybe twenty models (in a large game that benefits from a larger field) in total on the field, that isn't going to be a problem as long as the players use enough terrain to create interesting variety and choices on the table. Most missions suggest 4' x 4' tables. There's nothing that prevents you from using larger tables, like a 6' x 4' standard table or whatever you have. That is plenty of space to move and maneuver with a few not-really-Knight-sized Warlords and a bunch of fist sized lesser machines on the table, as much of that maneuvering comes from restricted turning capabilities. In BFG for an example, one of my long time favourite games, much of the decision making comes from trying to anticipate how you need to move in order to reach your proper destination in two or three turns while firing away. This game should be similar, considering how Hewitt has cited BFG as a prominent source of inspiration.

 KTG17 wrote:

And once more, this has nothing to do with Epic. It is not that they don't understand what made it great in its own right, it is that they wanted to make a different game. This isn't Epic. It was never meant to be Epic. It may someday expand towards Epic, but it is about titans and GW has been crystal clear on that matter from the very beginning.

This would have been the gate-way TO Epic. If this fails, any expansion on AT doesn't happen. How could it. Well, AT failed so should we invest on expanding it? Uhh... no.

You already had disappointment from a lot of people hoping for a return to glory years, and now others about the prices. Yes I know in the mix there are those that do not care about expanding the game to include infantry and tanks, and those who love the idea of managing a few models versus those managing strategy in a larger game, however, that thinking is far limited in scope than in developing something that can be expanded on.

It amazes me people don't see that. Who wants to shell out $300 for a game with a limited model run and tactics?!? Far fewer than those who want to shell out less for a game with far more options. Which is my point.

Well, I would say it is pretty hasty to say too much about the lack of tactics, really. Or about models: within a few months we'll have the main titans and a bunch of weapons, that should give a wide range of options considering that means we have harassers, light titans, line titans and heavy titans, each of which can be armed for a variety of purposes. They may very well allow for quite a varied bunch of approaches to the battles.

I'm more amazed by the insistence that this will necessarly fail now that it has a price (which is in line with the expectations here in Europe, I feel for you dollarfolks) or because it still isn't Epic. Sure Epic is awesome and stuff, but since the designers never said this would be Epic, I'm willing to stay hyped for the titan clash that it has always purported to be.

 KTG17 wrote:
AT/SM1 are what got me into table top gaming. Loved that time period. Found this on YouTube:

https://youtu.be/sd-8suzxJ0o

These guys are playing on a narrow board with the older Titans, but considering the new ones are gigantic, this might as well be how the new game plays. The game these guys played simply involved moving up your titans to point blank range in the middle of the board. No creative tactics in sight. But then again, there just isn’t any room for them either. These guys really should have turned the board sideways and and spread their few models out. This is what I mean about cramp spaces. I’ll need space for the new templates, my massive models, bigger buildings, and every game will be predictable. Oh yay I get to manage plasma and wrestle with the machine spirit. I could care less about that. To me it’s just another layer of unnecessary depth to make me feel like I am getting more out of my model because they cost so much and are too big to have too many of, and a for a game limited in scope. So awesome.

Okay, now you're just being disingenious. Ash, the man behind Guerrilla Miniature Games, is well known for being quite fast and loose with the games he plays and making "dumb" game decisions to either just have fun or keep the action going for viewers. If they play on a small table to quickly show off the mechanics of the game for audience who might not have been around in the old days, that does bias the end result towards a crash collision without it being the game's fault. Once again, there is nothing that necessitates you couldn't just as easily play on a larger table in your own games. You only get predictable games if you don't put effort in them on your own part.

And if micromanaging isn't you cup of tea, that's cool, but it is a part of this game and that has been clear from the start. It is an interesting design avenue GW hasn't really touched in years. I would expect something like that to be a compelling part of the game when it has only a few models, so yeah, it's possibly awesome. We'll see.

 KTG17 wrote:
And I can’t for the life of me understand how anyone can think not having some infantry and tanks running around wouldn’t have added an amazing dynamic to the game.

I do have all of my previous Epid stuff. I will give the new system a go with all of my old models and see how that plays out. I own 15 of the old plastic beetle Warlords shown in the video alone. Then another 4 Reavers and 4 Warhounds.

So screw these new models.

Because that isn't what anyone is really saying? The point is that having the entire scale of things from infantry to god-engines in the same rules system requires compromising either one of those and the intent here was to go all in in the thematic part of fighting with the titans. Just like many historical games usually focus on infantry alone and maybe throw some artillery or mortar support in from off field, here the spotlight is all for the titans, Would it have been cool if this was Epic? Sure, I too like large flanking sweeps and entire armies slowly grinding each other to dust, Am I okay with this game being a different game, because it never said it's going to be Epic? Yes, because I like it for what it seems to be on its own merits.

The point is not that infantry and tanks wouldn't add stuff, it is that the game without them can already be cool and actually lauch at some point instead of spending yet more years in the development limbo as Specialist Games studio struggles to get more space and production time. They don't really have too many hands to work on the project, given that it took two years for one man to create what we have here (modelwise).

 Silentz wrote:
Huh. Watched the Twitch demo game last night and there was such a hilarious "Oh, GW you muppets" moment.

One of the viewers asked these two guys (who discussed how they had been playtesting the game) in the chat... "Can you field an army of just knight banners?"

The players response was something along the lines of "Well.. I guess so? It might be pretty bad. I've never seen it done. You might have to get used to losing a lot! HAHA!"

And then the very next turn a banner of 3 knights flanked a Warlord titan, attacked it from the rear and pretty much smashed it to pieces! They didn't deal the killing blow but they did most of the work.

I do feel like there might possibly (hopefully?) have been a rules error when doing the Knight combat - they seemed to be surprisingly deadly in combat. Void shields don't count and they can target the body for maximum damage.

They die like ants at range but your Warlord doesn't get that many shots, and once a Knight is within about 10" the Warlord literally can't turn fast enough or move fast enough to do anything apart from shoot them with its defensive guns.

Anyway... it may be that the actual designers HAVE thought about this and tested it and stuff... and the guys they had playing it were less experienced... but it was just amusing to see they had not even considered that people might say "screw warlords they cost too much, let's just take loads of little guys".

I'd say the thing to take away from that match is that the players were kind of dolts, really
Just using the multishot (10 or so?) apocalypse launchers instead of volcano cannons against the knights or wiping them off first while letting the other Warlord beat you a bit would've been more tactically sound, as the current forces didn't really allow for screening. In a normal game, I'd wager having a Reaver with a lot of small dakka would be quite good at killing too brave knights if they approach uncautiously.

I don't mind the knights being deadly in combat, as that is how they should operate. Insignificant gnats to be casually crushed, but not something to be ignored as they will saw your legs off if you let them engage. They allow for interesting maneuvers on the field and require the larger titans to ponder what hey're doing instead of sitting tight and blasting away. That is good for the game.

Today's community article states that the magnet holes accomodate 5mm x 1mm discs. Happy about that, as I have a bunch of those lying around from another project that never took off

 KTG17 wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Once again, there is nothing that necessitates you couldn't just as easily play on a larger table in your own games. You only get predictable games if you don't put effort in them on your own part.

Well I could play on the floor too, but I do not want to. I actually have a 6x4 table, but that is only recently. I played for most of my life on a 4x4 board. Most tables I see at hobby shops are divided up 4x4 too. I think that should be the standard size games should be based on. Sure you can go bigger, but not everyone has that much space.

4' x 4' is the standard for AT, so no worries there. Going larger is an option for those who want that.

 KTG17 wrote:

Well, if they had gone the route that AT could easily be expanded on to include those other Epic units, there would be more to build, play, and explore with the game, right? How many Titan on Titan battles do you think you will have will a single Warlord on each side before you are over it? I mean seriously.

There would, yes, but that does not necessarily mean that the game is better for it. I play a variety of games for different needs, this game ought to fill the need of micromanaging my killer robots in a satisfyingly crunchy way without bogging it down too much. I don't especially see why the latter is relevant, as even if the game is playable with only two warlords, that isn't the main game. My friend is also going to get the GME so even our first matches should already have half a dozen miniatures per side on the field. The 1 v 1 Warlord clash is mostly relevant for demonstration purposes.

 KTG17 wrote:
Someone mentioned that Knight game Renegades. I never bought it, and immediately thought it looked boring because of the limited number of models. Now, I am sure the game involves micro-managing a Knight and there might be some interest in some players to try that out, but seriously how many on Dakka have or are even playing it regularly, or even able to find others to play it? What is more interesting? Playing a game with one type of unit? Or a mix of units? And I don't mean trying it out over a weekend, but investing in the game and making a hobby out of it. I played At/SM1 for YEARS. I played SM2/TL for YEARS. Why? Because the game captured my imagination by incorporating a wide number of units and different ways to play them. I could win games an infinite number of ways. That is what keeps people playing.

The IKR is mostly bluffing and damage control, really. I tried it out with a few dreadnoughts and used centimeters instead of inches, worked pretty well. Not the most satisfying thing ever, as the system is pretty throw-away reason to sell knights on a discount (unlike in Betrayal at Calth, that actually has a strong game in it with the discounted miniatures). It is not a good game with only two knights, but gets better if you go to three or four per side (still not good, but playable for the damage system alone).

If we are talking about a game with longevity, my hope is that AT will attain that status by indeed adding stuff like other titan variants, xenos races and such things to it over the years. It would be weird for GW to not do that, if they committed enough to a whole new scale of miniatures. As we remember, 8 mm scale was chosen as something they'd be comfortable producing marines and other infantry in if need be and have them be compatible with the titans. Expecting that at the very initial release of a strictly titan focused game is a bit of a stretch, though.

 KTG17 wrote:

Specialist Games studio struggles to get more space and production time. They don't really have too many hands to work on the project, given that it took two years for one man to create what we have here (modelwise).

I can appreciate that, I really can. I was involved with playtesting for Epic A back in the day, and face palmed a lot of decisions Jervis was suggesting because he didn't seem to understand what players ultimately wanted. He created a release schedule that had Chaos, CHAOS, being released like 3-4 years out after the EpicA rulebook.

Yeah, Jervis is an... interesting person. He does live in a bit of a different world than most gamers. *cough* that article on tournament play *cough*

 KTG17 wrote:
If GW wanted this to be successful, rather than coming out and saying, 'Hey this is Titan only and that's how they designed it', they should have looked farther ahead and think about how they could incorporate Epic into it, and even tell players that those updates could be down the road, depending how the game does. Imagine if this set, rather than coming out with 2 Warlords and 6 Knights, came out with a 2 Reavers, 4 Warhounds, and some infantry and Land Raiders. Its not that the set is expensive, ITS WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH IT. How many games can you get out of it? If its Titans only, and your entrance fee is pretty steep, getting newbies to sign on is going to be difficult. But showing how much game is in the box and the different ways to play and win is going to make the set far more appealing. 3-5 Titans per side does not sound like a game that is going to be played a lot.

I on the other hand think that being honest about that is exactly what they should do and have done. If you design a game with a purpose, it will most likely fulfill that purpose better than a general "put things here" game would, as has been demonstrated many times in all sorts of games from rpgs to boardgames to wargames. There is an obvious problem with that line of thinking too: if you have something, people will start screaming about why there aren't some other options, like has been demonstrated with the latest Kill Team release. For some reason people expect that EVERYTHING must be immediately available, no matter the logistics or design times or financial risks involved. By starting with a restricted set, you can gauge out how the system is received and what to do. Expanding isn't difficult, even at this point. But I want my game to be solid and that is easier with a restricted start, so I'm fine with this initial step.

 KTG17 wrote:
I don't doubt some people are going to love getting this game. I also doubt they will play it very much. And if it dies, and GOD KNOWS I DO NOT WANT IT TO, that means GW probably wont expand on it, and that is the tragedy.

The Horus Heresy started battling it out in 6mm, and it was glorious. I just can't believe that since Epic 40k, GW just can't get their act together on this. The mass of players rejected Epic 40k, they rejected Epic A, and they will ultimately reject this. And its not the scale that's the problem, its either the arrogance in the rules design or not convincing players to support it long term.

There is no arrogance: there is focus. They want to make a good game of titans, thus they made a game about titans. It's time Games Workshop started producing more than one game again and that is a good time to be livin'. And why wouldn't it be supported? They've got more designs coming in the pipeline and expansions will come if people just start playing. I'm reasonably confident that the player base has grown enough from the eighties that it will sell profitably even while remaining a marginal game compared to AoS and 40k proper. Just buying the rules is supporting the game, from a player side, even if you were to just play it with your old Epic minis.

 KTG17 wrote:
I am really not trying to come across as a cry baby. Epic is what got me into gaming. I have a huge appreciation for this scale. But I want to see people playing AT for the next 2-3 years. I just don't see that happening now, and that's why I am so disappointed.

And I will be buying the GM edition. I have to. I have everything ever released for Epic whether its a box set, White Dwarf, Journal, or whatever. :(

You aren't, I can see why you come from the angle you do. I kept playing hundreds of matches of BFG and Blood Bowl in the dark day when they languished without any support (well, BFG still does and is still awesome) and would've been absolutely thrilled to have them resurface in a big way. Blood Bowl did. AT can. I know I will add it to my repertoire to be played through the years, if the rules leaks thus far are anything to go by. Thinking about that combinantion campaign with BFG engagements, Kill Team commando raids, 40k battles, Titanicus clashes and what not happening via a hex map, it will be glorious

We'll just have to be vocal, though nice, towards GW and the expansions may come in some form eventually.

MarkNorfolk wrote:
Got mine! :-)

Good spread of weapons on the cards. time to put those bad boys together....

Do tell, dear fellow.

 General Helstrom wrote:

Each different maniple has an additional benefit – for the Axiom, it allows orders to continue to be issued even if one Titan fails a Command check, while the Venator Light Maniple allows a Reaver Titan to make additional attacks when a Warhound from the maniple collapses an enemy’s void shields.

Interesting! Not too sure about the first one. Sometimes it feels like GW deliberately introduces rules for control, morale etc. just so they can then hand out special rules to cirumvent them. The second one seems really characterful though and should encourage aggressive play and pack tactics.

Then again, it is a buff that does not strictly make your force more killy, just somewhat more reliable on doing what you want. That's a reasonable special rule to take, when it means you're giving up possible offensive increases.

Then again, I'm waiting for some sort of a reprise on Abaddon's classic BFG rule, "You have failed me the last time...", where you could use the Warmaster's superduper Leadership with a reroll to order some other captain around but if they failed despite the reroll, Abaddon's ship would shoot that poor bugger down themselves

Regarding the terrain, some pics from FB:




That is one big sprue and one small sprue. GME box has four times that. The larger city box has eight.

From the reference sheet it seems that 25% concealment gives -1 to hit you and 50% gives -2, so even a Warlord will benefit from reasonable buildings that aren't huge scyscrapers.

Mendi Warrior wrote:


Do you know how many components have been used for these buildings?

I counted 38 components in the large sprue and 13 in the small one, seems to be less in total here.

Sadly, I don't. Pleasantly surprised if the sprues do indeed hold a bit more than just that, as I'm starting to lean towards getting the larger citybox and using the bits for all sorts of scratchbuilt goodies.

How do the scenarios look, and by extension the normal matched system? I got the impression that both sides get to choose from their lot of objectives secretly and thus might approach the match from a bit asymmetrical angle. How detailed those objectives are and what do they entail?

 JonWebb wrote:
Hope someone makes some templates at epic scale in the near future. I want a Warlord to paint, and the rules to play, but will happily stick to my existing titans in all honesty.

Being on 50/40mmm round bases will make the new templates not so useful though...

You don't need them with round bases, really. Just mark where your front point is and take a 90 degree sector with that in the middle. For front corridor, just draw a line as wide as the base directly forwards.

Unless you meant the blast templates? Which should retain their shape, you might just want to reduce their size a bit to compensate for smaller bases, maybe by 30-40% ?

 notprop wrote:

 xttz wrote:
I guess the "20,000 copies" rumour was bogus then

Why?

The first new Space Hulk Edition shipped 74k copies in a similar amount of time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gifts for geeks is still showing 9 copies in stock:

https://www.giftsforgeeks.org.uk/adeptus-titanicus-grand-master-edition---advanced-order

No reason why it would be bogus, this has been marketed and hyped well. Even if people tend to groan about the price, there are many who still buy the thing because they really want it and go "ah what the hell, I'll live" while ordering it anyway. 20 000 is not much.

Rules breakdown, with the usual caveat that Winters tends to miss things here and there:




And some gameplay, with the caveat that players are fast and loose buggers having fun:

Very nice, Mongoose! Is a battle report already in the works? We need to see some heavy metal crashing around

 Gimgamgoo wrote:


How many GMEs were made? Seems like 1000 from GW online and a few more amongst the bigger stores in the UK.
It may have been a success in terms of 'a sell out' but so many more people wanted it and are now waiting for a year. Will those people still be so interested then? I'd call a success a close to sell out with everyone that wanted one getting one.
#imissedouttoo

A lot more. 1000 was the number of special coins for the first, the proper number is most likely some tens of thousands. Still relatively conservative, as they didn't want to overstock before gauging out the market, but large enough to avoid another Shadow Wars debacle. And as Andy Hoare said, if it sells like this they'll put a new batch out, most likely for Christmas.

 KTG17 wrote:


I swear, I know its probably because its modular, but man, those square tiles for the roof look perfect for putting the square Epic bases on. Its eerie.

Future proofing, man, future proofing...