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.

Hold on, you want to fall in love with powerful units but have no understanding of the rules yourself?

 Ishagu wrote:
Hold on, you want to fall in love with powerful units but have no understanding of the rules yourself?

I got into WH40K via video games and I love the lore enough to start getting serious about it.

I'm considering playing tabletop. But it is a huge time and money investment so I'm on the fence. This thread is just me exploring the lore more. I have no idea how strong these units are.

And why are you looking at niche, Forgeworld units that have no place in 99% of games?

Most of the Titans are not playable at standard game point levels. They are mostly collector pieces and used in weekend long, arranged Apocalypse Campaigns.

You should look into the factions you like, narrow down what you'd want to collect and then inquire about what units may or may not be useful.

 Ishagu wrote:
And why are you looking at niche, Forgeworld units that have no place in 99% of games?

Most of the Titans are not playable at standard game point levels.

You should look into the factions you like, narrow down what you'd want to collect and then inquire about what units may or may not be useful.

I already made a 5 page thread for that. But ultimately I'm a guy who likes ultimate units so what faction i choose will be determined by which ultimate units i like most. So I guess if I do play I'll only be playing games where only 1% of the people play in. It's no coincidence that my love of WH40k blossomed for my love of titanic dakka killing machines.

roboemperor wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Hold on, you want to fall in love with powerful units but have no understanding of the rules yourself?

I got into WH40K via video games and I love the lore enough to start getting serious about it.

I'm considering playing tabletop. But it is a huge time and money investment so I'm on the fence. This thread is just me exploring the lore more. I have no idea how strong these units are.

honestly, dakkadakka is a poor place to get an understanding of the lore because there's a fair bit of.... diverse opinions shall we say

I'll give you some reccomendations for places to start.

First the Lexicanium this is pretty much the best wiki to check out. there's another 40k wiki that's pretty good (and in some cases is even better) but it's also more likely to have people putting in fanon, so Lexicanium is your best starting zone.

Secondly Black Library this is GW's offical imprint for 40k novels so is a good place to find novels set in 40k. which is proably your cheapest introduction to the setting (a paper back book costs about 10 bucks, a codex costs 5 times that)

Thirdly, not sure where you are but see if you have a local GW store near you.


BTW if you like big titanic units, I reccomend looking hard at Imperial Knights, it's an entire FACTIONS of "awesome titanic units" or look at the specialist game "adeptus titanicus" a game specificly designed around that. a lot of the really big units are expensive forge world resin models. hard to use in a table top game, expensive as hell, and often not worth it in their points cost.

Imperial (or chaos) Knights are meanwhile avaliable in plastic, have their own codex, and are fantastic units (and fun to assmble!)

None of those units are particularly well balanced in terms of output to points.

The Taunar is probably the most playable in standard games of 40k, the other units don't see any action outside of thematic Apocalypse games where points and performance are secondary to the visual impact of the experience.

The folly with this topic is trying to find efficiency in strictly thematic units that aren't built around the normal game balance.


If you want to know about the lore of the armies that's a different thing entirely. Keep in mind that the lore doesn't transfer to the tabletop game with 100% accuracy. I would be happy to offer my opinion into which armies I find most compelling in terms of lore, whilst advising on their tabletop performance. Just ask!

Yes but you've not yet said if your measuring stick is lore or game based. Plus as noted several times above, the lore stick is VERY variable. Plus in reality its not always the case that X is better than Y. The situation can make for huge differences. A titan might have supreme firepower, but if a group of Tyranid Mawlocks burrow under the ground before it and then under its feet the titan could be left on unstable ground that collapses underneath it. The result being that its leg goes down, rendering its arm weapons ineffective and letting genestealers close in close for the kill on the surface, tearing through armour to reach the pilots inside.

Whilst in the tabletop game you'd not get that same option.

BrianDavion wrote:
First the Lexicanium this is pretty much the best wiki to check out. there's another 40k wiki that's pretty good (and in some cases is even better) but it's also more likely to have people putting in fanon, so Lexicanium is your best starting zone.

I read practically every article in there regarding necrons. And the wh40k wiki.

BrianDavion wrote:
Secondly Black Library this is GW's offical imprint for 40k novels so is a good place to find novels set in 40k. which is proably your cheapest introduction to the setting (a paper back book costs about 10 bucks, a codex costs 5 times that)

Thanks.

BrianDavion wrote:
BTW if you like big titanic units, I reccomend looking hard at Imperial Knights, it's an entire FACTIONS of "awesome titanic units" or look at the specialist game "adeptus titanicus" a game specificly designed around that. a lot of the really big units are expensive forge world resin models. hard to use in a table top game, expensive as hell, and often not worth it in their points cost.

Imperial (or chaos) Knights are meanwhile avaliable in plastic, have their own codex, and are fantastic units (and fun to assmble!)

I have been looking at a lot of imperial and chaos titans and I'm not gonna lie, every time I see their epic massive size I momentarily forget all the reasons why I don't like imperium of man.

 Ishagu wrote:
The folly with this topic is trying to find efficiency in strictly thematic units that aren't built around the normal game balance.

A hundred quadrillion space marines can take down an emperor titan. But it's not "efficient" is what I meant, not point efficiency. In-universe Resource efficiency. So like if mass for mass Serapteks can take out warlord titans then I can fall in love. On the other hand, if it costs 3 times more mass for a Seraptek army to take out a Warlord Titan, then that's weaksauce. See what I mean?

 Ishagu wrote:
If you want to know about the lore of the armies that's a different thing entirely. Keep in mind that the lore doesn't transfer to the tabletop game with 100% accuracy. I would be happy to offer my opinion into which armies I find most compelling in terms of lore, whilst advising on their tabletop performance.

There is literally I mean LITERALLY no lore released for the Seraptek Heavy Construct. I don't think they even appear in a novel. So I have no idea how to gauge their strength in lore, hence this thread.

Same with Tesseract Vault and Obelisk. It took this thread to learn just how not strong they are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
Yes but you've not yet said if your measuring stick is lore or game based. Plus as noted several times above, the lore stick is VERY variable. Plus in reality its not always the case that X is better than Y. The situation can make for huge differences. A titan might have supreme firepower, but if a group of Tyranid Mawlocks burrow under the ground before it and then under its feet the titan could be left on unstable ground that collapses underneath it. The result being that its leg goes down, rendering its arm weapons ineffective and letting genestealers close in close for the kill on the surface, tearing through armour to reach the pilots inside.

Whilst in the tabletop game you'd not get that same option.

It's Lore.

But... i can't find jack regarding Seraptek Heavy Construct in lore >.<
What can I do other than try to use tabletop?

edit: Or Ta'unar too for that matter.

Necron stuff tends to be more powerful in the lore than on the tabletop. The reason for this is their immense technological edge over the other factions.

Also in terms of the lore the Imperial Titans can erase entire cities in a single volley of their weapons from great range, but this does not translate to the tabetop. Also Titans are not particularly useful at fighting smaller targets at close range, that job fall to Imperial Knights and infantry brigades that accompany them.

In many cases models appear before the lore, hence the Seraptek Heavy Construct does not feature in any novels.

As I said if your thing is "massive" stuff check out the specialist game adeptus Titanicus, it's a game centered around titans. might be more your thing.

BrianDavion wrote:
As I said if your thing is "massive" stuff check out the specialist game adeptus Titanicus, it's a game centered around titans. might be more your thing.

The only downside is there's no Tau and considering the game is set in the Horus Heresy era - 10K years before Tau - chances are it will be a long time before FW get around to releasing more Xenos. Orks and Eldar might appear first, but its going to be a longer wait for Tyranids, Tau and Necrons




As for getting serious about the game honestly if you want to do tabletop stuff I think the best thing is to get some models and make a start building them up. All the lore in the world won't replace the fact that you've got to build and paint things and if you find you love that process then that's a big part of the hobby. However if you find you hate it then you might be better spent simply buying books from Black Library and reading the lore and playing computer games.

One thing to keep in mind is that the lore isn't set in stone, nor is it perfect. There are loads of different writers of different backgrounds writing the lore over, what, 30 or so years. It changes and has changed quite a bit over that time (Custodes in the original lore were basically like Spartans from the 300 film - half nude warriors). Plus depending on a story focus the "power" of something will vary a lot. In some books a marine might survive things that would normally have it killed off in an instant; in others droves of marines will die to seas of gaunts etc....


Edit example from the novella Severed

Alright, I guess final question.

In lore
How many knights does it take to take down a warhound?
How many warhounds does it take to dake down a reaver?
How many reavers does it take to take down a warlord?
How many warlords does it take to take down an emperor?

Since everything i can find is compared to one of these titans.

But yeah, lore wise it seems ta'unar > Seraptek Heavy Construct since ta'unar (in sufficient numbers) is designed to take down hierophants while Seraptek Heavy Constructs is equal to or slightly greater than a knight.

Yes but in the lore Necrons technology can eat entire planets and over-power black holes, and create parallel dimensions at will. I wouldn't claim anything from the Tau is superior.

As for your Titan questions, there is no definitive answer because there is no perfect situation without other factors at play.
A single Warhound can ambush a Warlord from behind and score a critical shot against the reactor.
Just like in real life a guy with a simple sticky bomb can destroy a tank if he gets it to the right spot.

roboemperor wrote:
Alright, I guess final question.

In lore
How many knights does it take to take down a warhound?
How many warhounds does it take to dake down a reaver?
How many reavers does it take to take down a warlord?
How many warlords does it take to take down an emperor?

Since everything i can find is compared to one of these titans.

But yeah, lore wise it seems ta'unar > Seraptek Heavy Construct since ta'unar (in sufficient numbers) is designed to take down hierophants while Seraptek Heavy Constructs is equal to or slightly greater than a knight.

You're asking the wrong questions, or at least asking them in the wrong way. There are actually very few instances of those things fighting in the lore, and they certainly don't neatly line up as X of one unit vs Y of another. The background for 40k isn't some heavily curated, scientifically accurate monolithic piece of work and the abilities of races, units and individuals varies hugely depending on context and the whims of the authors. So there is no answer to your question in lore, because those situations simply don't happen and it's not like we have precise, consistent technical data we can use as a comparison.

Even in real life there is no way to measure this. How many T90s does it take to Destroy an M1 Abrams?

Depends on the situation, range, environment, Intel, etc

 Ishagu wrote:
Even in real life there is no way to measure this. How many T90s does it take to Destroy an M1 Abrams?

Depends on the situation, range, environment, Intel, etc

One. One good shot and abrams is destroyed and vice versa. This signifies they are on par with each other regardless of whether one is superior or the other. Ballpark they're within the same league.

There are really no ballpark figure of the power of imperial titans relative to one another?

There is no concrete measurement of penetrating power of their kinetic and energy weapons against the displacement power of their Void Shields and armour plating.
Also Titans can divert energy from weapons to shields and visa versa in seconds, modifying the output of both.

The Emperor is about twice as tall as a Warlord.
Warhounds= ~12m
Reavers= ~20m
Warlords= ~30m
Emperors= ~60m

This is close to the tabletop models apperantly. I read that:
Warhounds are 12" tall
Reavers are 18"
Warlords are 24"
And if they ever get a model,
Emperors should be 48" tall

Make of that as you will.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:
Even in real life there is no way to measure this. How many T90s does it take to Destroy an M1 Abrams?

Depends on the situation, range, environment, Intel, etc

T90? Obviously one good shot is enough and vice versa, as somebody already said

If you ment T-34s (76 or 85) then its a better question imo. A stock M1 outranges, outdamages, and litterally out performs it in every manner BUT we know that an M1 would be able to withstand almost any shot coming from a T-34, unlike the the T-90 where it depends on who hits who first.

I remever reading in Desert Storm only about 7 M1s were lost. Two due to friendly fire and the rest was due to them breaking down and what not.

Thing is, an M1 isnt Invulnerable to 85mm AP rounds (Unless were talking about its frontal armour )

... And I just realized I misread your question. Still though, its still completley possible for the US to test out how well a 125mm gun would do against on an Abrams

Arson Fire wrote:

While it's true that some of its base stats are weaker than imperial titans, the advantage it has over them is that it's part of a faction full of buffs you can apply to it.
The imperial titans have little in the way of supporting units or abilities. So what they can do is pretty much limited to what's on their datasheet.

Tyranids have an assortment of abilities and stratagems they can put onto their titan. Significantly improving its durability, offense, and speed over what you see on the datasheet.
Defensively, you can easily stack a -1 to hit it, a 5+++, counting as being in cover while in the open (for an effective 1+ save), and -1 to the strength of enemy weapons.

I stand by the Hierophant being significantly better than a Warhound.

OP was talking about the titans themselves, and titans alone will hardly produce enough CP to use all the stratagems it need by it’s self. Throw in some supporting units and a CP battery, and sure, the Heirophant will be better. If the Warhound could benefit from admech or knight buffs and stratagems the story would be different.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The conversion factor is odd. 12 Structure Points in 4e means 36 Hull Points in 6e, and hull points tended to be 3-4 wounds each in the conversion to 8e (ex. 6HP Knights -> 24 Wounds) so it could be as much as 144 wounds.

So 110 to 120. That’s why I guessed 120 originally. I’m still not sure about the toughness characteristic, I can’t see it going higher than 25 if it has more than 100 wounds. Titan toughness and strength values are hard to balance because the range is so big.

 vict0988 wrote:

roboemperor wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Two to three Serapteks are about on-par with a Warlord, four to an Emperor. Hierophants aren't much better than Serapteks, little tougher but I'd go with two and four for Warlord and Emperor class titans respectively.

huh. What you're saying directly contradicts the others. 2 against warlord and 4 against emperor is amazing, but others said it will take many to take down a warlord.

So... does the Seraptek kick major ass or not? :s

As for ta'unar vs seraptek, if I read you correctly, if they both start at maximum distance, 1v1 (no support) and ta'unar shoots first, ta'unar wins, but if they start in melee distance Seraptek wins even if the ta'unar goes first?

As I mentioned I've never played with or against the Warlord, it might be way off. Taking another look at the Warlord it's probably closer to four Serapteks to a Warlord and I don't believe any Emperor class titans have had official rules in 8th and I believe I only saw fan rules for 7th. Serapteks are pretty strong, they have great melee and very good shooting, they also have a lot of wounds. Outside of competitive games and with favourable terrain they are absolute monsters. In the game everything has to be viewed in relation to pts and Warlord titans can't be brought within the normal pts limit which is why I don't know too much about them.

That's my understanding of how the Seraptek/Ta'unar matchup would go. Why are you curious about all these matchups?

Your forgetting that all those units have macro weapons (double damage v. titanics) except for the Seraptek. That puts it at a huge disadvantage in any titan v. titan match up. Normal vehicles are one thing, but a Seraptek will only do about 2.5 wounds to an Emperor titan equivalent (assuming T20 and a void shield that stays around longer than the Warlord’s), while even a Warlord can easily destroy 2-3 Serapteks per turn. On top of that, it’s so slow that it will never get into melee (let alone survive against overwatch) where it might fare better. It’s not hard to imagine that an Emperor titan can take on 2 dozen if they start at range.

And for the Seraptek vs Taunar your estimation is correct. Frankly if they start at any distance outside of melee the Taunar might win, it has macro weapons and the Seraptek doesn’t. The Taunar will probably do about 20 wounds in shooting and another 10 in overwatch if it gets a 5+. If it can scrape through one round of combat it will surely win.