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.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
It worked fantastic for BFG, but that's not what we have here.

It worked fantastically for AT which led to eldar and ork titans.

Again: If this release pattern couldn't work there wouldn't BE those eldar titans and ork gargants you are asking for. Nope. never would have come. Zero. Zip. Nada. Nothing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Lysenis wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If it's just a test, it should be a hell of a lot cheaper

I suggest trying the game before rejecting it.

I own the 28mm Imperial Knights: Renegade game and a couple of Knights (Eldar & Imperial), so what could AT possibly do better than the game I already own?

I'm not spending GW money on a 'test" game that I flat out don't need; however, if someone wants to send me a review copy, I'll be happy to give it a spin.

But hey, if it floats your boat, more power to ya!

Renegade has rules for wait for it...1 faction with 2 sides(imperial knights and renegade knights). Whee!!!!! WHAT AN AMAZING amount of factions. Oh wait why that sounds familiar...And unit wise it has even less. AT has 3 titans with weapon options+ knights with weapon options. Renegade has 1 knight with weapon options. WOW! What an AMAZING amount of units to play with! Real example of wide amount of faction and unit depth! Surely pinacle in it's kind!

And rules aren't nearly as good as AT.

Exactly. AT is IKR, but with smaller models.

Lord_Zaherial wrote:
GW has never grasped the concept of a loss leader EVER!!! I wish they would learn the concept of pinning the ears back of the people that support them financially year in and year out... after over 30+ yrs I am more than disappointed in GW on this pricing!

<Takes a look at the WFB and 40k starters since the dawn of time>

...right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:

Where are we seeing sales to expectations?

Mostly on the boxed set being sold out at most places. GW even recalled their store stock in the UK so that the main GW site had stock and some for events. To me that suggests that the most expensive, the biggest sticker-shock item sold out at a rate that either just as GW planned or way above what they expected. And that was the most expensive single purchase which contained nothing unique to it - its only feature was a free Warlord in savings.

It depends on where you are. Over here I could buy 10+ GME boxes if I just went to the physical stores in the region (...and had the money, natch).

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Lysenis wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If it's just a test, it should be a hell of a lot cheaper

I suggest trying the game before rejecting it.

I own the 28mm Imperial Knights: Renegade game and a couple of Knights (Eldar & Imperial), so what could AT possibly do better than the game I already own?

I'm not spending GW money on a 'test" game that I flat out don't need; however, if someone wants to send me a review copy, I'll be happy to give it a spin.

But hey, if it floats your boat, more power to ya!

Sure, well let's see, a more tactically crunchy game with a variety of options, not just rolling saves and hits, using commands to alter the base functionality of your units, the reactor die to add in risk to every potential reward, reactor management to make pushing your titan risky yet powerful, weapon destruction, arcs, templates, and not just management of a knight.

In to list creation. Lists that are so wide in variety that there is no "best" load outs, no bad decisions, Strategems that feel more than just CP farm fodder, primary missions, secondary missions, tertiary missions, tricks, assets, etc. List creation that crests a Turn 0 layer of game play, a turn 0.5 layer of game play, the ability to take less than your opponent but still be tactically capable.

Beautiful models that are not only a fun to build but to paint.

The game is deep. It's not ocean deep but there is enough to test and play that the Meta is going to be varied from game to game tournament to tournament

 Lysenis wrote:
The game is deep. It's not ocean deep but there is enough to test and play that the Meta is going to be varied from game to game tournament to tournament

How would you say it compares rules-wise with Battletech? That is still the game I perceive as being most similar in scope to AT18.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Exactly. AT is IKR, but with smaller models.

Warlord is about same size so smaller models what? And AT has more variety. So if you want variety get AT rather than renegade. Renegade sucks for variety. AT has 4x of it. Actually more...

Rulewise I fell in love just reading this little bit of tidbit: Remember, you check weapons line of sight, not models. Bloody hell. Who would have thought you see GW game again with that sensible concept.

AT is much more variety. It's not just more models avaiable. More Missions. Rules are lot more extensive. Not to forget... the known Rules are just the start. GW will support the next 3-4 years with new content, campaigns and more.

tneva82 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Exactly. AT is IKR, but with smaller models.

Rulewise I fell in love just reading this little bit of tidbit: Remember, you check weapons line of sight, not models. Bloody hell. Who would have thought you see GW game again with that sensible concept.

yup, on paired weapons, if both weapons dont have a clear line of sight you can only roll whit the one that has meaning half amount of attacks.
makes laser dot/line markers a VERY usefull tool.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Exactly. AT is IKR, but with smaller models.

no it's not. AT has a MUCH MUCH deeper rules set. but what do I know, I've looked at both.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Exactly. AT is IKR, but with smaller models.

Rulewise I fell in love just reading this little bit of tidbit: Remember, you check weapons line of sight, not models. Bloody hell. Who would have thought you see GW game again with that sensible concept.

yup, on paired weapons, if both weapons dont have a clear line of sight you can only roll whit the one that has meaning half amount of attacks.
makes laser dot/line markers a VERY usefull tool.

And it stops the 40k sillyness of "my toe sees your toe so we both shoot freely with accuracy that would make god himself jealous". And makes it possible bigger titan can see top of carapace but smaller titan is in such a position guns DON'T see. Holy smoke. Some sense of logic in GW game.

tneva82 wrote:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Exactly. AT is IKR, but with smaller models.

Rulewise I fell in love just reading this little bit of tidbit: Remember, you check weapons line of sight, not models. Bloody hell. Who would have thought you see GW game again with that sensible concept.

yup, on paired weapons, if both weapons dont have a clear line of sight you can only roll whit the one that has meaning half amount of attacks.
makes laser dot/line markers a VERY usefull tool.

And it stops the 40k sillyness of "my toe sees your toe so we both shoot freely with accuracy that would make god himself jealous". And makes it possible bigger titan can see top of carapace but smaller titan is in such a position guns DON'T see. Holy smoke. Some sense of logic in GW game.

yup, it makes the movment fase realy, realy important, cuz not only do you have to know where you are going/want to go, you allso have to make shure you weapons have LoS to your intended target, and there is shooting arcs for the weps.
and whit no pre measure allowed and multiple things to manage in advanced rules, the rule style of this game does fit thouse players who preferd the older version of 40k whit its more deeper rules.

 Albertorius wrote:

 Lysenis wrote:
The game is deep. It's not ocean deep but there is enough to test and play that the Meta is going to be varied from game to game tournament to tournament

How would you say it compares rules-wise with Battletech? That is still the game I perceive as being most similar in scope to AT18.

I played Battletech for a while - both the 'full' version as well as Alpha-strike. Adeptus Titanicus is a bit like a lighter version of battletech in terms of damage tracking. It feels similar with it's movement and turning. The management of reactors, shields, and commands adds a layer that battletech doesn't have. Battletech has heat management, but it is pretty shallow. Basically if you have a well built mech, you won't be overheating and if you are - you just forego firing hot weapons for a turn. There are actually alot of similarities in weapon functions between BT and AT. In BT, when you needed to soften a target, you use missles which would hit random parts of a mech with low damage - essentially weakening it's overall armor - and you would follow up with a high damage weapon - hoping to penetrate the armor and knock out a weapon or blow up a reactor. In AT, you use low damage, high volume weapons to knock out shields and high damage weapons to damage structure or do critical damage.

Overall, I feel it's quite a bit deeper than BT as far as rules go, yet cleaner and faster to play. Obviously there are less units in AT now - but when I played BT, no-one ever used anything but mechs. Vehicles were flatly inferior. Battlesuits were situationally useful, but rarely seen.

 Albertorius wrote:

 Lysenis wrote:
The game is deep. It's not ocean deep but there is enough to test and play that the Meta is going to be varied from game to game tournament to tournament

How would you say it compares rules-wise with Battletech? That is still the game I perceive as being most similar in scope to AT18.

From what battletech players have told me as I have not played that system. But from what I have observed of Battletech, the research I did when i wanted to play etc, its not as crunchy. It is a deep game but not a 6 hour game for a 4 mech v 4 mech game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Exactly. AT is IKR, but with smaller models.

Rulewise I fell in love just reading this little bit of tidbit: Remember, you check weapons line of sight, not models. Bloody hell. Who would have thought you see GW game again with that sensible concept.

yup, on paired weapons, if both weapons dont have a clear line of sight you can only roll whit the one that has meaning half amount of attacks.
makes laser dot/line markers a VERY usefull tool.

We were discussing this with the Apoc Missiles Barrage ability. It can create some very interesting situations

SirWeeble wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 Lysenis wrote:
The game is deep. It's not ocean deep but there is enough to test and play that the Meta is going to be varied from game to game tournament to tournament

How would you say it compares rules-wise with Battletech? That is still the game I perceive as being most similar in scope to AT18.

I played Battletech for a while - both the 'full' version as well as Alpha-strike. Adeptus Titanicus is a bit like a lighter version of battletech in terms of damage tracking. It feels similar with it's movement and turning. The management of reactors, shields, and commands adds a layer that battletech doesn't have. Battletech has heat management, but it is pretty shallow. Basically if you have a well built mech, you won't be overheating and if you are - you just forego firing hot weapons for a turn. There are actually alot of similarities in weapon functions between BT and AT. In BT, when you needed to soften a target, you use missles which would hit random parts of a mech with low damage - essentially weakening it's overall armor - and you would follow up with a high damage weapon - hoping to penetrate the armor and knock out a weapon or blow up a reactor. In AT, you use low damage, high volume weapons to knock out shields and high damage weapons to damage structure or do critical damage.

Overall, I feel it's quite a bit deeper than BT as far as rules go, yet cleaner and faster to play. Obviously there are less units in AT now - but when I played BT, no-one ever used anything but mechs. Vehicles were flatly inferior. Battlesuits were situationally useful, but rarely seen.

EDIT: One point, though... missiles are for crit fishing, not the other way around! SRMs are particularly effective in that regard. LRMs are often used to soften up targets a bit due to range and IF capabilities more than overall comparative damage, IME.

Lysenis wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 Lysenis wrote:
The game is deep. It's not ocean deep but there is enough to test and play that the Meta is going to be varied from game to game tournament to tournament

How would you say it compares rules-wise with Battletech? That is still the game I perceive as being most similar in scope to AT18.

From what battletech players have told me as I have not played that system. But from what I have observed of Battletech, the research I did when i wanted to play etc, its not as crunchy. It is a deep game but not a 6 hour game for a 4 mech v 4 mech game.

Interesting... thanks both!

I'm not really very interested in the scale of AT (too big for me tbh except for the knights, which are lovely), but I might give the rules a try.

 Albertorius wrote:

SirWeeble wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 Lysenis wrote:
The game is deep. It's not ocean deep but there is enough to test and play that the Meta is going to be varied from game to game tournament to tournament

How would you say it compares rules-wise with Battletech? That is still the game I perceive as being most similar in scope to AT18.

I played Battletech for a while - both the 'full' version as well as Alpha-strike. Adeptus Titanicus is a bit like a lighter version of battletech in terms of damage tracking. It feels similar with it's movement and turning. The management of reactors, shields, and commands adds a layer that battletech doesn't have. Battletech has heat management, but it is pretty shallow. Basically if you have a well built mech, you won't be overheating and if you are - you just forego firing hot weapons for a turn. There are actually alot of similarities in weapon functions between BT and AT. In BT, when you needed to soften a target, you use missles which would hit random parts of a mech with low damage - essentially weakening it's overall armor - and you would follow up with a high damage weapon - hoping to penetrate the armor and knock out a weapon or blow up a reactor. In AT, you use low damage, high volume weapons to knock out shields and high damage weapons to damage structure or do critical damage.

Overall, I feel it's quite a bit deeper than BT as far as rules go, yet cleaner and faster to play. Obviously there are less units in AT now - but when I played BT, no-one ever used anything but mechs. Vehicles were flatly inferior. Battlesuits were situationally useful, but rarely seen.

EDIT: One point, though... missiles are for crit fishing, not the other way around! SRMs are particularly effective in that regard. LRMs are often used to soften up targets a bit due to range and IF capabilities more than overall comparative damage, IME.

Lysenis wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 Lysenis wrote:
The game is deep. It's not ocean deep but there is enough to test and play that the Meta is going to be varied from game to game tournament to tournament

How would you say it compares rules-wise with Battletech? That is still the game I perceive as being most similar in scope to AT18.

From what battletech players have told me as I have not played that system. But from what I have observed of Battletech, the research I did when i wanted to play etc, its not as crunchy. It is a deep game but not a 6 hour game for a 4 mech v 4 mech game.

Interesting... thanks both!

I'm not really very interested in the scale of AT (too big for me tbh except for the knights, which are lovely), but I might give the rules a try.

Model size sells it for me. Since the game is played on a 4x4 base the size of models helps give that big stompy robots feel. Add in that you could EASILY see 6+ titans on the board at once plus knights. Its all a blast! When warhounds come out they will be amazing. Especially since they will be around 3" or so tall

 Lysenis wrote:
Model size sells it for me. Since the game is played on a 4x4 base the size of models helps give that big stompy robots feel. Add in that you could EASILY see 6+ titans on the board at once plus knights. Its all a blast! When warhounds come out they will be amazing. Especially since they will be around 3" or so tall

Hey, I'm glad that people like the minis ^_^. It's just that they are a bit "maxi" for me xD

 Albertorius wrote:

 Lysenis wrote:
Model size sells it for me. Since the game is played on a 4x4 base the size of models helps give that big stompy robots feel. Add in that you could EASILY see 6+ titans on the board at once plus knights. Its all a blast! When warhounds come out they will be amazing. Especially since they will be around 3" or so tall

Hey, I'm glad that people like the minis ^_^. It's just that they are a bit "maxi" for me xD

It would really be hard to scale a Warlord down further. The Warhound is already around 3" and when they do Epic those will be sized to the Titans so its not going to be huge. The Warlord will be one of the biggest if they dont do an Imperator

 Albertorius wrote:

 Lysenis wrote:
Model size sells it for me. Since the game is played on a 4x4 base the size of models helps give that big stompy robots feel. Add in that you could EASILY see 6+ titans on the board at once plus knights. Its all a blast! When warhounds come out they will be amazing. Especially since they will be around 3" or so tall

Hey, I'm glad that people like the minis ^_^. It's just that they are a bit "maxi" for me xD

I’m right there with ya - the Reaver model is plenty big for me, but I used to play Battletech - which is what all the knights are sized as anyway.

I’ve read the AT rules and just recently played a game of Battletech - I think AT is going to hit that nice middle ground between classic BattleTech and Alpha Strike. We get a few more mid-range titan variants and I think this game will be good to go. Right now though, I want ma Warhounds.

 Lysenis wrote:


The Ender 3 is the best way to start. About as good as as most $500 pri terms for $200 or less. Printed a sweet Shadowsword recently for kicks

Okay, you just got my attention

Do you have any pictures of models like this that have been printed (either by you or others)? And which Ender 3 should I be looking at (seems to be a few versions)?

All the reviews from the game seems ok. Just don't see the depth of it (though is more than 40k, I don't see the variation to be to much more to justify a new game) or the variation so big that I cant buy 40k equivalent (for similar cost) and get almost the same game + more. BFG or something totally different yes I see it. But, a game where we already get the mechs and can use them I don't see the point...

Similar cost I mean Knights etc

Spectral Ceramite wrote:
All the reviews from the game seems ok. Just don't see the depth of it (though is more than 40k, I don't see the variation to be to much more to justify a new game) or the variation so big that I cant buy 40k equivalent (for similar cost) and get almost the same game + more. BFG or something totally different yes I see it. But, a game where we already get the mechs and can use them I don't see the point...

Similar cost I mean Knights etc

Have you Read my blog? In just 3 articles I create different lists that all have different concepts and potential. Add in the fact that the game does not use a set Point value to determine what you build to but instead uses a range of points (medium sized game is 1250 minimum and 1750 maximum) and then taking less than your opponent is balanced by getting more stratagems and such.

It's got a ton of depth

 Lysenis wrote:

Spectral Ceramite wrote:
All the reviews from the game seems ok. Just don't see the depth of it (though is more than 40k, I don't see the variation to be to much more to justify a new game) or the variation so big that I cant buy 40k equivalent (for similar cost) and get almost the same game + more. BFG or something totally different yes I see it. But, a game where we already get the mechs and can use them I don't see the point...

Similar cost I mean Knights etc

Have you Read my blog? In just 3 articles I create different lists that all have different concepts and potential. Add in the fact that the game does not use a set Point value to determine what you build to but instead uses a range of points (medium sized game is 1250 minimum and 1750 maximum) and then taking less than your opponent is balanced by getting more stratagems and such.

It's got a ton of depth

Nah haven't read your blogs but seen enough reviews and matches on GMG and MWG to know that its not for me (rather spend my money on Necormunda, 40k and now AOS. As I said it has depth but not enough to make me buy...nah, for regular games (the gw board games like silver tower make me buy more for throw away's with family member's that come over once a month etc)

Spectral Ceramite wrote:

 Lysenis wrote:

Spectral Ceramite wrote:
All the reviews from the game seems ok. Just don't see the depth of it (though is more than 40k, I don't see the variation to be to much more to justify a new game) or the variation so big that I cant buy 40k equivalent (for similar cost) and get almost the same game + more. BFG or something totally different yes I see it. But, a game where we already get the mechs and can use them I don't see the point...

Similar cost I mean Knights etc

Have you Read my blog? In just 3 articles I create different lists that all have different concepts and potential. Add in the fact that the game does not use a set Point value to determine what you build to but instead uses a range of points (medium sized game is 1250 minimum and 1750 maximum) and then taking less than your opponent is balanced by getting more stratagems and such.

It's got a ton of depth

Nah haven't read your blogs but seen enough reviews and matches on GMG and MWG to know that its not for me (rather spend my money on Necormunda, 40k and now AOS. As I said it has depth but not enough to make me buy...nah, for regular games (the gw board games like silver tower make me buy more for throw away's with family member's that come over once a month etc)

I appreciate that you might not find the game interesting, your opinion is as valid as mine, but I dont get how you think AT doesnt offer enough variation when you seem to justify spending your money on three other games that are all much more similar to each other then anyone of them are to AT?

Spectral Ceramite wrote:

 Lysenis wrote:

Spectral Ceramite wrote:
All the reviews from the game seems ok. Just don't see the depth of it (though is more than 40k, I don't see the variation to be to much more to justify a new game) or the variation so big that I cant buy 40k equivalent (for similar cost) and get almost the same game + more. BFG or something totally different yes I see it. But, a game where we already get the mechs and can use them I don't see the point...

Similar cost I mean Knights etc

Have you Read my blog? In just 3 articles I create different lists that all have different concepts and potential. Add in the fact that the game does not use a set Point value to determine what you build to but instead uses a range of points (medium sized game is 1250 minimum and 1750 maximum) and then taking less than your opponent is balanced by getting more stratagems and such.

It's got a ton of depth

Nah haven't read your blogs but seen enough reviews and matches on GMG and MWG to know that its not for me (rather spend my money on Necormunda, 40k and now AOS. As I said it has depth but not enough to make me buy...nah, for regular games (the gw board games like silver tower make me buy more for throw away's with family member's that come over once a month etc)

Those two have been getting things wrong and I am pretty sure you have seen what 3 videos?

Regardless, if its not for you its not for you. Have a great time but until you actually do a proper demo or a full game you will never really know the game.

Soulless wrote:

Spectral Ceramite wrote:

 Lysenis wrote:

Spectral Ceramite wrote:
All the reviews from the game seems ok. Just don't see the depth of it (though is more than 40k, I don't see the variation to be to much more to justify a new game) or the variation so big that I cant buy 40k equivalent (for similar cost) and get almost the same game + more. BFG or something totally different yes I see it. But, a game where we already get the mechs and can use them I don't see the point...

Similar cost I mean Knights etc

Have you Read my blog? In just 3 articles I create different lists that all have different concepts and potential. Add in the fact that the game does not use a set Point value to determine what you build to but instead uses a range of points (medium sized game is 1250 minimum and 1750 maximum) and then taking less than your opponent is balanced by getting more stratagems and such.

It's got a ton of depth

Nah haven't read your blogs but seen enough reviews and matches on GMG and MWG to know that its not for me (rather spend my money on Necormunda, 40k and now AOS. As I said it has depth but not enough to make me buy...nah, for regular games (the gw board games like silver tower make me buy more for throw away's with family member's that come over once a month etc)

I appreciate that you might not find the game interesting, your opinion is as valid as mine, but I dont get how you think AT doesnt offer enough variation when you seem to justify spending your money on three other games that are all much more similar to each other then anyone of them are to AT?

But they have multitude of factions. If I go Space Marine e.t.c (i have multiple chapters and Deathwach and GK alone) I can go Eldar multi again. If I buy a Warlord Eldar Titan I can use it in my norm matches or leave it out and use my normal cheap 40k army, I can buy big expansive unites or go cheap units. For the same money as a GMC I can play/buy 2 games/armies at 500/1000pts if want (if want to break it down) and tbh 40k and AOS have more depth (in regards to units and player base).

TBH for me I will buy BFG if release but big robots killing each other....meh I will just play mechwarrior online.

Soulless wrote:

Spectral Ceramite wrote:

 Lysenis wrote:

Spectral Ceramite wrote:
All the reviews from the game seems ok. Just don't see the depth of it (though is more than 40k, I don't see the variation to be to much more to justify a new game) or the variation so big that I cant buy 40k equivalent (for similar cost) and get almost the same game + more. BFG or something totally different yes I see it. But, a game where we already get the mechs and can use them I don't see the point...

Similar cost I mean Knights etc

Have you Read my blog? In just 3 articles I create different lists that all have different concepts and potential. Add in the fact that the game does not use a set Point value to determine what you build to but instead uses a range of points (medium sized game is 1250 minimum and 1750 maximum) and then taking less than your opponent is balanced by getting more stratagems and such.

It's got a ton of depth

Nah haven't read your blogs but seen enough reviews and matches on GMG and MWG to know that its not for me (rather spend my money on Necormunda, 40k and now AOS. As I said it has depth but not enough to make me buy...nah, for regular games (the gw board games like silver tower make me buy more for throw away's with family member's that come over once a month etc)

I appreciate that you might not find the game interesting, your opinion is as valid as mine, but I dont get how you think AT doesnt offer enough variation when you seem to justify spending your money on three other games that are all much more similar to each other then anyone of them are to AT?

People saying the game doesn't have enough variation based off a video from before the retail launch of the game really bores me. I mean, come on. The game when fully out (should be seeing something on those Warhounds soon I hope!) will have a ton of variation.

Want to take 2 Reavers and 3 Warhounds? Well take the Gryphonicus rules and replace a warhound with a Reaver. Just be careful you give Stratagem points to your opponent. That could give them more objectives or ways to mess with you!

Want to play with 6 Warhounds? Well you will need at least 1 reaver but you could do it.

Want to play with 12 knights? Sure, don't forget your Maniple though.

Seriously, 3 maniples with 3-5 titans each with all various loadouts and options means you have some interesting combinations. Want Warhounds that only use a flamer Template? Well you could do that and use a bit of shenanigans to make the strength of that attack higher (I go over this on https://opustitanicus.wordpress.com/2018/09/02/venator-maniple-list-variety/). You could do a Shiledbane only list if you wanted.

I just get REALLY annoyed when people say "Oh this doesn't have enough variety based off a limited experience and no actual reading of rules or full gameplay"

Spectral Ceramite wrote:
All the reviews from the game seems ok. Just don't see the depth of it (though is more than 40k, I don't see the variation to be to much more to justify a new game) or the variation so big that I cant buy 40k equivalent (for similar cost) and get almost the same game + more. BFG or something totally different yes I see it. But, a game where we already get the mechs and can use them I don't see the point...

Similar cost I mean Knights etc

AT doesn't really compare to 40k. In 40k you've really only got a handful of options with your units. Move and fire and that's about it. No flanking, little maneuvering, etc - which is fine for a game with that high of a model count. From what I've seen in AT in my test games and from demos, it feels as if it offers a lot of tactical flexibility with each model. For example - If you forego attacking, get some cover, pump shields and attempt emergency repairs every turn, you can tank a Warlord's assault on a Warhound for a few turns while some knights maneuver to its rear. In that situation, now your opponent's Warlord needs to decide if he will stay focused and hope to knock out the turtling Warhound, or pump some energy into maneuvering to get a bead on the knights. The Warlords turn very slowly, which makes it harder to get the fast-moving knights into it's fire arc. However, if he turns to engage the knights - it's likely that the Warhound will break cover and go for the now-exposed Warlord flank.

In a similar situation in 40k - you'd just basically have CC units running straight at their target and there are few options to boost your defenses besides cover and smoke launchers on vehicles. And in the end, this situation would largely be decided by what units are involved. 40k is largely decided pre-game with your list. My preliminary opinion is that AT games feel as if they are going to be more based around tactical choices.

I really don't think AT is nearly as expensive as 40k either. If you're only playing 40k with knights or custodes - maybe. otherwise, a full 1500-2000 point army will set you back a lot further than the 5-6 models you'd need for a fairly flexible force for AT. I do think the cost per model is a bit steeper than it should be though - at least vs 40k. Likely due to GW's expectations of lower volume of sales.

I imagine the tactical depth won't appeal to everyone - but I'm personally a bit bored with 40k's simplicity and I've only been back into the hobby for a short while.

Spectral Ceramite wrote:

Soulless wrote:

Spectral Ceramite wrote:

 Lysenis wrote:

Spectral Ceramite wrote:
All the reviews from the game seems ok. Just don't see the depth of it (though is more than 40k, I don't see the variation to be to much more to justify a new game) or the variation so big that I cant buy 40k equivalent (for similar cost) and get almost the same game + more. BFG or something totally different yes I see it. But, a game where we already get the mechs and can use them I don't see the point...

Similar cost I mean Knights etc

Have you Read my blog? In just 3 articles I create different lists that all have different concepts and potential. Add in the fact that the game does not use a set Point value to determine what you build to but instead uses a range of points (medium sized game is 1250 minimum and 1750 maximum) and then taking less than your opponent is balanced by getting more stratagems and such.

It's got a ton of depth

Nah haven't read your blogs but seen enough reviews and matches on GMG and MWG to know that its not for me (rather spend my money on Necormunda, 40k and now AOS. As I said it has depth but not enough to make me buy...nah, for regular games (the gw board games like silver tower make me buy more for throw away's with family member's that come over once a month etc)

I appreciate that you might not find the game interesting, your opinion is as valid as mine, but I dont get how you think AT doesnt offer enough variation when you seem to justify spending your money on three other games that are all much more similar to each other then anyone of them are to AT?

But they have multitude of factions. If I go Space Marine e.t.c (i have multiple chapters and Deathwach and GK alone) I can go Eldar multi again. If I buy a Warlord Eldar Titan I can use it in my norm matches or leave it out and use my normal cheap 40k army, I can buy big expansive unites or go cheap units. For the same money as a GMC I can play/buy 2 games/armies at 500/1000pts if want (if want to break it down) and tbh 40k and AOS have more depth (in regards to units and player base).

TBH for me I will buy BFG if release but big robots killing each other....meh I will just play mechwarrior online.

That is good. In AT you have at least 12 different base lists to go on from. Hell thats low end since I am only taking into consideration the choice of titant for the maniples, not extra titans, second maniples, weapons, knights, stratagems, and Legio rules.

So sure, it lacks variety. There are only dozens of viable and fun possibilities.

"40K and AoS have more depth"

Having more things to choose from is meaningless if they don't offer any actual variation. The main games offer dozens of armies and subfactions, sure, but in the end once you discard all the rules that have different names and wording but functionally do the same thing(usually conditional Mortal Wounds) and factor the outcomes over the course of a whole phase rather than cherry picking stat comparisons, all that "variation" flattens right down into a handful of archetypes, and one shooty horde is much like another, one elite melee army in the end the same as the rest.

Factor in the order of magnitude that AT has over the main two in terms of core mechanical complexity and choosing to play 40K or AoS over AT for "depth" is...genuinely hilarious.

SirWeeble wrote:
I really don't think AT is nearly as expensive as 40k either

AT is a small skirmish game with only one faction instead of a mass battle having over dozen factions that "soup", so of course it's cheaper!