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.

In the News/Rumours thread about Imperial Knights, there was discussion about whether Knights were Titans or not. Alpharius asked that this discussion be taken outside of the thread, so rather than reply there, thought I would post here. One of the points made in the thread, that I wanted to respond to, was a lack of evidence from GW that they are not Titans:

 Palindrome wrote:
Either way no one claiming that they are not Titans has ever produced anything solid from GW to support their position.

In response to that here's some text from the Titan Legions game, Codex: Titanicus by Andy Chambers, Games Workshop 1994, to interpret as you will.

Table of contents: Titan Forces and Knights are listed as separate sections (with subheaders titles 'Choosing the Titan Legion' and 'Choosing the Knight Army' respectively).

Page 11: fluff section titled 'The Titan Legions' does have a subheader called 'The Knight Worlds' on page 12, where it talks about the Adeptus Mechanicus rediscovering feudal worlds. Page 13 has this text:

The most important innovation that the Tech-Priests brought to the Knight Worlds were the fighting machines called Knights. These machines were one-man versions of a Titan, much smaller and less powerful than a real Titan, but far better suited to the mobile style of warfare prevalent amongst the nobility of the Knight Worlds.

Today these Knights fight along the Titans and form a reserve of troops which can be called up into the Titan Legions when required.

The above reads to me, as a native English speaker, that Knights are not true Titans but something different.

Knights army list section, pages 27-30: not one single use of the word Titan in reference to the Knights. They are referred to as 'Knight suits' repeatedly.

'Eavy metal colour section, page 54, titled Knights. Some flavour text and captions, never uses the word Titan.

I am not aware (although could be wrong) of material which does use the word Titan to refer to Knights explicitly. I could not find one in these old Epic books. Hope this information is useful to someone.

Just cause they're not technicly titans doesn't mean people aren't going to call em that. most people call tomatos a vegitable after all

Right, I know. I just wanted to respond to the claim by posting the background fluff, as I didn't see that had been done elsewhere in the thread, and Alpharius said to take it elsewhere.

way I see it people are mostly throwing about the term "knight titans" to diffrentiate from say.... bretonnian Knights

BrianDavion wrote:
Just cause they're not technicly titans doesn't mean people aren't going to call em that. most people call tomatos a vegitable after all

As they say, intelligence is knowing that tomatos are a fruit. Wisdom is knowing they don't belong in a fruit salad.

Calling them Knight Titans, though inaccurate to the originals, does help immediately differentiate them from everything else under the sun in 40K that has "Knight" in the name.

I see Imperial Knights as distinctly different to Titans. In size terms they are to a Titan broadly speaking as a Stompa is to a Gargant. Knights are one-man walkers compared to even the smallest classes of Titan which have crews of several operators, and the background fluff I'm familiar with makes clear distinctions between the forces of the Knight Worlds and that of the Titan Legions themselves, but that in large scale battles they often fight together due to storied links between them, and as they complement each other well.

But hell, 40k is a universe open enough to interpretation to make what any one person says not matter a great deal. If you want to call a Knight a Titan, then who am I to say you shouldn't? In the great scheme of things it's not the most important thing ever, that's for sure. So not for me, but each to their own.

BrianDavion wrote:
most people call tomatos a vegitable after all

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Botanical_Fruit_and_Culinary_Vegetables.png

BrianDavion wrote:
way I see it people are mostly throwing about the term "knight titans" to diffrentiate from say.... bretonnian Knights

They are Knight Engines. Titans are "Titan Engines." The reason the terms knight and Titan exist is to differentiate among different types of engine.

Random question after looking at the Knight rumor pictures: Why do Super-heavy walkers need relentless?

Thatguyhsagun wrote:
Random question after looking at the Knight rumor pictures: Why do Super-heavy walkers need relentless?

So they can fire and assault with ordnance weapons? I think they can do that anyway though.