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.

BrianDavion wrote:

 zend wrote:
The Warlord is right about the same size of Magnus and Mortarion (not counting wings), both of which are more expensive. They all reach just under the edge of the standard Knight's shoulder guards, with Mortarion being the shortest.

What were people expecting with the price? Seriously.

Bell of Lost Souls actually put out an article with an image that really gives a fantastic prespective of the price




It shows that the Warlord is pretty much in line with every other big stompy robot GW has given us in the last few years. So yeah, the price of the Warlord is about what we should expect.

And all but that dreadnought and the Warlord are usuable in multiple systems by multiple factions. When I pay $150 for an Imperial Knight, I'm paying for the option to use it in many different ways, in many different venues. When I'm paying $110 for a AT Warlord Titan, I'm paying $110 to use it in a very niche game that I may or may not be able to find folks to play with.

That picture really means nothing.

BrianDavion wrote:

 zend wrote:
The Warlord is right about the same size of Magnus and Mortarion (not counting wings), both of which are more expensive. They all reach just under the edge of the standard Knight's shoulder guards, with Mortarion being the shortest.

What were people expecting with the price? Seriously.

Bell of Lost Souls actually put out an article with an image that really gives a fantastic prespective of the price




It shows that the Warlord is pretty much in line with every other big stompy robot GW has given us in the last few years. So yeah, the price of the Warlord is about what we should expect.

With the Reaver being not too far away from the Redemptor in size this makes me think a £40-45 price isn't too far fetched. Then perhaps the same again for 2 Warhounds and suddenly a playable AT force becomes more accessible.

JWBS wrote:

Vorian wrote:
They've never had anything like the support they are giving these games now. Specialist games have obviously been a massive success, they aren't going anywhere.

Stuff like the boxed games, the Heresy ones, GoC, the new speed freaks etc - they are 40k support. They'll get white dwarf stuff now and again but thas all

Kill team, shadespire, warhammer quest are obviously for the longer haul. They'll keep having releases under that brand.

Specialist were always a success. They were nice games, and manageable too. The trouble was, once you had your 3 Necro gangs, or 3 BB teams, you were basically done spending. Sure you might get bored eventually, but you could then buy another single gang, or even just start using one of your mate's BB team and he uses one of yours. Not like 40K, where if you're bored of your SMs and want to switch to Eldar, it's a reasonably large financial investment. Theoretically you could swap your Marines for someone else's Eldar, but that seems far more drastic than a temporary loan of a small, 15 model team / gang. Maybe that's the reason they're doing this weird staggered release (they were always staggered ofc, but not to this extent as far as I recall). Maybe the plan is that everyone buys everything, because they've got 3 months to buy and paint each team / gang as they're released. And the prices seem reasonable too, so that could further encourage people to buy absolutely everything the game has to offer.

Take a look at Shadespire, and it's quite obvious this is the plan.
If you want all the cards, you need to buy all the warbands.
With the price point, I don't see many guys not buying everything for Shadespire.
From where I'm standing, this looks to be the long-term plan - get everyone to just buy everything.

JWBS wrote:

The £50 Crusader / Errant seems like a glaringly convenient omission.

Please tell me you're not referring to Knight: Renegade. You know that's would be disingenuous, right?

 xttz wrote:

JWBS wrote:

The £50 Crusader / Errant seems like a glaringly convenient omission.

Please tell me you're not referring to Knight: Renegade. You know that's would be disingenuous, right?

Yeah, the Errant's £85, not 50.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 zend wrote:
The Warlord is right about the same size of Magnus and Mortarion (not counting wings), both of which are more expensive. They all reach just under the edge of the standard Knight's shoulder guards, with Mortarion being the shortest.

What were people expecting with the price? Seriously.

Bell of Lost Souls actually put out an article with an image that really gives a fantastic prespective of the price




It shows that the Warlord is pretty much in line with every other big stompy robot GW has given us in the last few years. So yeah, the price of the Warlord is about what we should expect.

And all but that dreadnought and the Warlord are usuable in multiple systems by multiple factions. When I pay $150 for an Imperial Knight, I'm paying for the option to use it in many different ways, in many different venues. When I'm paying $110 for a AT Warlord Titan, I'm paying $110 to use it in a very niche game that I may or may not be able to find folks to play with.

That picture really means nothing.

A bit disingenuous there, you buy any of the knights to play as either Imperium or Chaos (are the new ones usable for Chaos?) and solely for 40K, there are going to be very, very few people buying Renegade and Fogebane to actually play those games and almost all of them are bought for 40K.

So pretty much the same as the Titanicus Titans, all can be played as either Impreial or Chaos and all for a single game system.

The real bummer I see with Titanicus is now GW knows they can charge what they did for the Grand Master set and people will fight each other to pay it. I can only assume when something like BFG comes back out, it will have it's ships similarly upscaled and be priced accordingly, rather than $120 for something akin to what the box set contained the first time around.

 xttz wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 zend wrote:
The Warlord is right about the same size of Magnus and Mortarion (not counting wings), both of which are more expensive. They all reach just under the edge of the standard Knight's shoulder guards, with Mortarion being the shortest.

What were people expecting with the price? Seriously.

Bell of Lost Souls actually put out an article with an image that really gives a fantastic prespective of the price




It shows that the Warlord is pretty much in line with every other big stompy robot GW has given us in the last few years. So yeah, the price of the Warlord is about what we should expect.

With the Reaver being not too far away from the Redemptor in size this makes me think a £40-45 price isn't too far fetched. Then perhaps the same again for 2 Warhounds and suddenly a playable AT force becomes more accessible.

I'm of the opinion the Reaver should have been the first Titan they put out, or even a warhound, keep the inital box set buy in cost low, and let the warlord be something that people see as being more of an expensive centerpiece. On the other hand it looks like most if not all Maniples are build around a warlord so...

Plus, you can totally use your AT Warlord as an Armiger if you don't mind it being a tad too big. It's not like it was ever going to get a cover save anyways.

Also, GW basicly outright says in one of their AT videos they expect there will be a collector's market for these things, people looking for a display piece

Those are some expensive big robots

 Hulksmash wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

Vorian wrote:
They've never had anything like the support they are giving these games now.

Were you around in the 90s? Because the volume of stuff that came out for the specialist game du jour was easily on par with what we're seeing now. They're just doing it concurrently and over a longer time frame now, whereas they used to just release it all in a few months, publish a few articles in WD and then move on to the next game in the rotation.

Specialist games have obviously been a massive success, they aren't going anywhere.

Unlike the last time they were successful and not going anywhere?

Stuff like the boxed games, the Heresy ones, GoC, the new speed freaks etc - they are 40k support. They'll get white dwarf stuff now and again but thas all

Kill team, shadespire, warhammer quest are obviously for the longer haul. They'll keep having releases under that brand.

Citation needed. Or, more accurately, sufficient time passed needed to make this actually true rather than marketing spiel.

Show me where the bad specialist game manager touched you! But seriously the only product still going strong from the 90's table top strategy wise is 40k.....You seem stuck on the idea that every product released should have full coverage forever. 40k is the outlier, not the norm. Even WFB died. That said GW seems dedicated to providing full games now. I wouldn't be surprised for most specialist games to get 2-4 years of support before being considered a "full" game and then they stop support. That's reasonable for a side game. If they keep selling the models as direct only that's not really a huge deal to me. That's still more than most game systems last put out by other companies.

I've also hear that Rountree spent time with specialist games before he went to Forgeworld. If that's the case we've actually got someone who believes in side games being beneficial to the health of the company. Take a breath and maybe a break. You're not the only guy whose been around since 2nd edition and honestly even with me being an adult and having way less free time I'm currently happier with GW than I ever was in the late 90's and early 2000's let alone the dark times before Rountree.

I'm not stuck on the idea they should have coverage forever, I am in fact arguing that I expect that their coverage of these games won't last. It's other people who seem to feel the need to argue that it's going to go on, when precedent suggests it simply won't. I'm not wound up about it, I'm simply disagreeing with people who think that these games are going to receive support ad Infinitum in the absence of any evidence or experience to the contrary.

Huh. Stick a magnet on the bottom of some shieldbreaker missiles, and you have great stand ins for the warp missile rack on the warlord. And there tend to be spares since 2 cannons 1 missile is a good loadout for the knight.

Clearly cost is a deal breaker for a lot of folks right now, although it remains to be seen if the Reaver and Warhound prices bring some folks back.

My idea to GW, of course, would be an "Easy To Build" warlord, like they did with the Redemptor dreadnought. $45 maybe, monopose, and you draw in the money conscious to buy into the rules. Before you hook them with add-on weapon packs and campaign books and such!

I don't think they would go through the effort of trying to produce an easy to build warlord. It's slightly too complex of a model to do that with, you'd lose quite a bit of detail. If anything they'd just suggest starting with a reaver or two warhounds instead. It wouldn't be an efficient use of their resources and manpower (which the specialist games is limited in). Better idea to put chris drew to work on cerastus knights or plastic upgrade sprues, or even a new class of titan entirely.

Oggthrok wrote:
Clearly cost is a deal breaker for a lot of folks right now, although it remains to be seen if the Reaver and Warhound prices bring some folks back.

My idea to GW, of course, would be an "Easy To Build" warlord, like they did with the Redemptor dreadnought. $45 maybe, monopose, and you draw in the money conscious to buy into the rules. Before you hook them with add-on weapon packs and campaign books and such!

even easy build seems like it'd be expensive for a warlord, now an easy build reaver seems idealthe warlord is supposed to be the big expensive centerline of most armies. If I had to go with a easy build option I'd rather it be the Reaver because people will proably be buying more of them.

vegeta365 wrote:
Xenos is coming. The only thing stopping it is poor sales. Tony Cottrell said they would do the other races. It is Epic that is a ? I think it will definitely come as they deliberately sized the scale so that you could tell the difference in mk armour on a space marine but Tony did say that they are not making the mistake they did last time and rushing into Epic. It will be a long long way off.

6mm allows distinction of marks as well. Well at least 3rd parties can. Would be embarrassing for "best miniature makers in the world" as they self-style not be able to replicate what independent sculptor could do


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
To make any assumptions about long term support based on two years of, occasional,y decidedly patchy, releases isn't a good idea.

Edit: Also, we're not talking ten years ago, were talking back into the last century, in the era of 2nd Ed 40K, Epic was a core game and stuff like Gorka Morka happened. Non-core games still operated on an essentially 12 month cycle.

'90's gorkamorka sales weren't particularly good though so not fair to use that as example...Hell GW nearly went down due to Gorkamorka sales being so bad.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Huh. Stick a magnet on the bottom of some shieldbreaker missiles, and you have great stand ins for the warp missile rack on the warlord. And there tend to be spares since 2 cannons 1 missile is a good loadout for the knight.

Speaking of using existing bits and kits for AT, i'm waiting for someone to convert the Knight Castellan into an Imperator Titan. Based on this pic, it would be close enough in size if they build up the cathedral part of the Titan from where the shoulders are on the Castellan.

 zend wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Huh. Stick a magnet on the bottom of some shieldbreaker missiles, and you have great stand ins for the warp missile rack on the warlord. And there tend to be spares since 2 cannons 1 missile is a good loadout for the knight.

Speaking of using existing bits and kits for AT, i'm waiting for someone to convert the Knight Castellan into an Imperator Titan. Based on this pic, it would be close enough in size if they build up the cathedral part of the Titan from where the shoulders are on the Castellan.

Spoiler:

I didn't realize the size differance was that small, for some reason I thought the Imperator was a LOT bigger, likely means that a Imeprator Mini isn't outside the realm of the possiable

The Imperator model would most likely be about the size of a 28mm Warhound.

 Malika2 wrote:
The Imperator model would most likely be about the size of a 28mm Warhound.

yeah thats why I'm thinking, my gut feeling is it'll come but it'll be a forge world resin Titan.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
@ Overread- I'm streets behind! Awesome reference.

I think those worrying about support for Adeptus Titanicus are taking the wrong message away from this.

GW just sold out a bundle that cost almost 300 dollars at a much lower discount point than the bundles. Expect more product like this, priced like this in the future.

I predict, here and now, BFG will be upscaled and its price made equivalent to Adeptus Titanicus.

Upscaled BFG models of the same quality as the AT one would make that a must buy for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

And all but that dreadnought and the Warlord are usuable in multiple systems by multiple factions. When I pay $150 for an Imperial Knight, I'm paying for the option to use it in many different ways, in many different venues. When I'm paying $110 for a AT Warlord Titan, I'm paying $110 to use it in a very niche game that I may or may not be able to find folks to play with.

That picture really means nothing.

What are these multiple systems that you're using knights in? You are prepared to pay extra for knights because you can also play renegade with them? Really?

Not to mention that your argument seems to be that the more niche a game is, the cheaper the models should be despite the economics of manufacturing driving the price in the opposite direction.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Gitzbitah wrote:
@ Overread- I'm streets behind! Awesome reference.

I think those worrying about support for Adeptus Titanicus are taking the wrong message away from this.

GW just sold out a bundle that cost almost 300 dollars at a much lower discount point than the bundles. Expect more product like this, priced like this in the future.

I predict, here and now, BFG will be upscaled and its price made equivalent to Adeptus Titanicus.

Upscaled BFG models of the same quality as the AT one would make that a must buy for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

And all but that dreadnought and the Warlord are usuable in multiple systems by multiple factions. When I pay $150 for an Imperial Knight, I'm paying for the option to use it in many different ways, in many different venues. When I'm paying $110 for a AT Warlord Titan, I'm paying $110 to use it in a very niche game that I may or may not be able to find folks to play with.

That picture really means nothing.

What are these multiple systems that you're using knights in? You are prepared to pay extra for knights because you can also play renegade with them? Really?

Not to mention that your argument seems to be that the more niche a game is, the cheaper the models should be despite the economics of manufacturing driving the price in the opposite direction.

Yeah as I said I was pleanetly suprised to see AT essentially priced like a 40k model, I FULLY expected to get hit with a "Speciality games tax"

tneva82 wrote:

vegeta365 wrote:
Xenos is coming. The only thing stopping it is poor sales. Tony Cottrell said they would do the other races. It is Epic that is a ? I think it will definitely come as they deliberately sized the scale so that you could tell the difference in mk armour on a space marine but Tony did say that they are not making the mistake they did last time and rushing into Epic. It will be a long long way off.

6mm allows distinction of marks as well. Well at least 3rd parties can. Would be embarrassing for "best miniature makers in the world" as they self-style not be able to replicate what independent sculptor could do


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
To make any assumptions about long term support based on two years of, occasional,y decidedly patchy, releases isn't a good idea.

Edit: Also, we're not talking ten years ago, were talking back into the last century, in the era of 2nd Ed 40K, Epic was a core game and stuff like Gorka Morka happened. Non-core games still operated on an essentially 12 month cycle.

'90's gorkamorka sales weren't particularly good though so not fair to use that as example...Hell GW nearly went down due to Gorkamorka sales being so bad.

That's not how I heard the tale. The story I was told was that GorkaMorka sold fine...in english. Unfortunately, GW had radically overestimated demand for localised versions and once all the unsold rules content in other languages had been pulped the release overall made a loss. So, like all the Specialist Games last time around(and WHF too), the only people stopping GW from making money with them was GW's own dumb decisions.

I think that's less likely these days because of the way they structure the dripfeed sales model and the fact that the present management at least give the appearance of valuing market research and consumer feedback, but anyone who thinks GW are done making dumb decisions forever is having a giggle. This time around though, I'd be less worried about sales and more worried about office politics - I very much doubt the "specialist games only detract from our 'core' lines and are the reason for any fiscal bumps 40K & [AoS] encounter" attitude has vanished from the studio, it certainly wansn't confined to Kirby last time around.

EDIT: I'll say that upscaling BFG would be a mistake. The models would already look fantastic with modern sculpting & casting techniques at their current size, and while a game like AT which is focused on maniple vs maniple engagements can survive having its scale bumped up, BFG is supposed to be a game about fleets of ships clashing; if they were to up the scale by anything more than a token amount intended as an "up yours" to people who own existing models, it would radically reduce the scope of the game to squadron vs squadron engagements, at which point it would just be AT with different models and a coat of paint.

 Yodhrin wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

vegeta365 wrote:
Xenos is coming. The only thing stopping it is poor sales. Tony Cottrell said they would do the other races. It is Epic that is a ? I think it will definitely come as they deliberately sized the scale so that you could tell the difference in mk armour on a space marine but Tony did say that they are not making the mistake they did last time and rushing into Epic. It will be a long long way off.

6mm allows distinction of marks as well. Well at least 3rd parties can. Would be embarrassing for "best miniature makers in the world" as they self-style not be able to replicate what independent sculptor could do


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
To make any assumptions about long term support based on two years of, occasional,y decidedly patchy, releases isn't a good idea.

Edit: Also, we're not talking ten years ago, were talking back into the last century, in the era of 2nd Ed 40K, Epic was a core game and stuff like Gorka Morka happened. Non-core games still operated on an essentially 12 month cycle.

'90's gorkamorka sales weren't particularly good though so not fair to use that as example...Hell GW nearly went down due to Gorkamorka sales being so bad.

That's not how I heard the tale. The story I was told was that GorkaMorka sold fine...in english. Unfortunately, GW had radically overestimated demand for localised versions and once all the unsold rules content in other languages had been pulped the release overall made a loss. So, like all the Specialist Games last time around(and WHF too), the only people stopping GW from making money with them was GW's own dumb decisions.

I think that's less likely these days because of the way they structure the dripfeed sales model and the fact that the present management at least give the appearance of valuing market research and consumer feedback, but anyone who thinks GW are done making dumb decisions forever is having a giggle. This time around though, I'd be less worried about sales and more worried about office politics - I very much doubt the "specialist games only detract from our 'core' lines and are the reason for any fiscal bumps 40K & [AoS] encounter" attitude has vanished from the studio, it certainly wansn't confined to Kirby last time around.

EDIT: I'll say that upscaling BFG would be a mistake. The models would already look fantastic with modern sculpting & casting techniques at their current size, and while a game like AT which is focused on maniple vs maniple engagements can survive having its scale bumped up, BFG is supposed to be a game about fleets of ships clashing; if they were to up the scale by anything more than a token amount intended as an "up yours" to people who own existing models, it would radically reduce the scope of the game to squadron vs squadron engagements, at which point it would just be AT with different models and a coat of paint.

depends how it's done, generally speaking I see elements of BFG in AT, the Warlord is our Battleship. Reavers are cruisers, warhounds our light cruisers, and knights are our escorts. so I suspect AT is going in part of be used as a "learning experiance" for a future BFG game

Plus the size of the model is irrelevant in BFG so it in no way invalidates old models.

 Yodhrin wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

vegeta365 wrote:
Xenos is coming. The only thing stopping it is poor sales. Tony Cottrell said they would do the other races. It is Epic that is a ? I think it will definitely come as they deliberately sized the scale so that you could tell the difference in mk armour on a space marine but Tony did say that they are not making the mistake they did last time and rushing into Epic. It will be a long long way off.

6mm allows distinction of marks as well. Well at least 3rd parties can. Would be embarrassing for "best miniature makers in the world" as they self-style not be able to replicate what independent sculptor could do


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
To make any assumptions about long term support based on two years of, occasional,y decidedly patchy, releases isn't a good idea.

Edit: Also, we're not talking ten years ago, were talking back into the last century, in the era of 2nd Ed 40K, Epic was a core game and stuff like Gorka Morka happened. Non-core games still operated on an essentially 12 month cycle.

'90's gorkamorka sales weren't particularly good though so not fair to use that as example...Hell GW nearly went down due to Gorkamorka sales being so bad.

That's not how I heard the tale. The story I was told was that GorkaMorka sold fine...in english. Unfortunately, GW had radically overestimated demand for localised versions and once all the unsold rules content in other languages had been pulped the release overall made a loss. So, like all the Specialist Games last time around(and WHF too), the only people stopping GW from making money with them was GW's own dumb decisions.

I think that's less likely these days because of the way they structure the dripfeed sales model and the fact that the present management at least give the appearance of valuing market research and consumer feedback, but anyone who thinks GW are done making dumb decisions forever is having a giggle. This time around though, I'd be less worried about sales and more worried about office politics - I very much doubt the "specialist games only detract from our 'core' lines and are the reason for any fiscal bumps 40K & [AoS] encounter" attitude has vanished from the studio, it certainly wansn't confined to Kirby last time around.

EDIT: I'll say that upscaling BFG would be a mistake. The models would already look fantastic with modern sculpting & casting techniques at their current size, and while a game like AT which is focused on maniple vs maniple engagements can survive having its scale bumped up, BFG is supposed to be a game about fleets of ships clashing; if they were to up the scale by anything more than a token amount intended as an "up yours" to people who own existing models, it would radically reduce the scope of the game to squadron vs squadron engagements, at which point it would just be AT with different models and a coat of paint.

I'm sure it wasn't confined to Kirby, but with both him and Alan Merret gone... The wargaming market is different, the specialist games team is different, GW/FWs internal organization is different, the release schedule is different, the leadership is different. Personally I wouldn't consider their previous behaviour to be any sort of indicator of future behaviour for these reasons. Especially that last one. So I see no reason to expect the worst.

RobertDD wrote:
I've been looking at the knight sprues and I can't figure out whether they have slots for magnetizing. It looks like the arms should be swappable pretty easily.

Does anyone know? if they do, what size magnets would they take?

I assembled a set of knights last knight. It's doable but will take some drilling and fiddling about. No slots for magnets on the knights.

I think you could get away with drilling a 2 or 3mm hole into each side of the knights body and magnetizing it that way.

The Warlord has dual size magnet slots ny the way. A 1*5mm slot top and bottom, and then a 1*3mm hole in the middle of that. So either 1*5mm or 2*3mm magnets should fit. I used 1*5mm and the arms stay on nicely.

 Xanthos wrote:

RobertDD wrote:
I've been looking at the knight sprues and I can't figure out whether they have slots for magnetizing. It looks like the arms should be swappable pretty easily.

Does anyone know? if they do, what size magnets would they take?

I assembled a set of knights last knight. It's doable but will take some drilling and fiddling about. No slots for magnets on the knights.

I think you could get away with drilling a 2 or 3mm hole into each side of the knights body and magnetizing it that way.

The Warlord has dual size magnet slots ny the way. A 1*5mm slot top and bottom, and then a 1*3mm hole in the middle of that. So either 1*5mm or 2*3mm magnets should fit. I used 1*5mm and the arms stay on nicely.

With regards to knights and magnets, I found this tutorial a while ago http://www.brianmcgillivray.com/2012/05/warhammer-magnetized-chaos-warriors/

In order to reduce the number of magnets used (and associated costs), the guy uses magnets on the "fixed" part and cut steel nails on the exchangeable parts.

I'm planning on having a look to see if this can be replicated for AT models.

Hehe saw the knight models yesterday on sprue. Cute tiny buggers. Is my wallet in trouble if GW puts out game I want where I can use these...

I'd actually be cool with there being not too many additional releases for AT. The triad of Titans slated for release and the weapons that have cards for them should make for a nicely balanced game. More releases - which means more funky special rules and one-upmanship - could easily cause the game to bloat and become unbalanced.

As long as they keep selling the stuff they're releasing now I'd be much happier with things like campaign books.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
Hehe saw the knight models yesterday on sprue. Cute tiny buggers. Is my wallet in trouble if GW puts out game I want where I can use these...

Travel-sized Renegade!