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.

It would admittedly have been cool if an Imperator was two pieces, each just a 1.5' by 1.5' by 2' foot, placed roughly a foot apart on the table, with the titan itself implied to be eight feet tall (what you'd get converting 150 meters to 28mm scale). Probably hard to work with, though.

Grass4hopper wrote:I get what you're saying, and I completely agree that 55m is pretty big. But I always imagined the larger titans being comparable to skyscrapers in height. When you look at The Dreadnote chart, you realize the Empire State Building, which is tiny by skyscraper standards, towers over a Warlord. It's not even close to half the height of the Eiffel Tower

So it's not so much that 55m is small, it just that not skyscraper big.

Well we should remember, the tripods from war of the worlds are about that height - thats pretty tall when you're looking up.

Very good comaparison, makes the suggested sizes of the titans much more intimidating than first perceived.

Dan

Mechanized Space Corps wrote:I've seen a ferris wheel that's one hundred and sixty feet and I was not impressed. My whole view of titans is shattered forever

And 60 m is only about 36 more feet tall. Myrtle Beach, S.C. has a ferris wheel that is 200 foot tall, which is only a few more feet tall than a titan at 60 meters (196.850 feet).

Personally I think it should be as tall Godzilla and it some movies the big guy is about the same height as a Imperator titan.

In the 1954 Japanese original, Dr. Yamane estimates that Godzilla was 50 meters tall (167 feet). Godzilla destroys Tokyo, but is later killed by the Oxygen Destroyer. A second Godzilla appears in the next movie: Godzilla Raids Again (1955). This creature is also 50 meters tall and would remain this size for the following Godzilla movies through to Terror or MechaGodzilla (1975).

In 1984, Toho presented Godzilla (Godzilla 1985 in the U.S.) as a direct sequel to the 1954 original, thus ignoring the existence of the 14 other films in the series. At the same time, the height of the new Godzilla was increased to 80 meters (267 feet). Toho probably did this to make Godzilla appears more imposing alongside Tokyo's modem skyscrapers. Godzilla is also 80 meters tall in Godzilla vs. Biollante (1989). In Godzilla vs. King Ghidora (1991), futurians attempt to prevent Godzilla's creation. However, their complicated time-travel plan backfires, and Godzilla is reborn in 1992, now towering at 100 meters (334 feet).

So basically in 1954 the Imperator Titan's size would have looked impressive. It really needs to be 100 meters at least in my opinion to look the part.

I've always taken my imagined image of an Imperator titan from mainly the art and some of the descriptions in the fluff.

I've always pictured a warhound as being 25m or so and a a Reaver at roughly twice that height at 50m.

I've always felt like the gulf in size between a Reaver and an Imperator was massive, maybe three to four times that at 150/200m.

This image is built on the flowery language used in some of the fluff and isn't based on numbers, just wishing.


Forgot about Warlord: 75/100m

I found this picture going from a space marine up to an Imperator titan.

http://images.wikia.com/warhammer40k/images/1/16/Godengines.jpg

This shows imho the awesomeness of the Imperator titan pretty well.

So a lot of people appear to be voting based on how big they feel an Imperator is, despite there being 0 fluff supporting it.

Frazzled wrote:

Grass4hopper wrote:
I get what you're saying, and I completely agree that 55m is pretty big. But I always imagined the larger titans being comparable to skyscrapers in height. When you look at The Dreadnote chart, you realize the Empire State Building, which is tiny by skyscraper standards, towers over a Warlord. It's not even close to half the height of the Eiffel Tower

So it's not so much that 55m is small, it just that not skyscraper big.

Well we should remember, the tripods from war of the worlds are about that height - thats pretty tall when you're looking up.

Yeah the tripods are imposing, but they're closer to what I envisioned the height of warhound or reaver would be irl.

mindfield wrote:
Titans still look ultra awesome even with correct scale, on the table top where our wars are fought, the scale of titans are pretty dead on, considering they are not scaled to be ultra huge due to having it still playable on the tables
10"-11" for warhounds
18" reavers
24"-26" warlords
33"-40" Imperators
In these sizes,I could still imagine them being playable on normal height tables with the 28mm scaled soldiers running around their feet or even trying to fight them, heheh.

Scale in 40k is all over the place (as most people know).

According to offical Forge World measurments combined and compared to size comparision on the Apocalypse datasheets; Imperial Titans models (according to GW) should be:
Warhound 10.5"
Reaver 16"
Warlord 23"
Emperor 39"

That mean GW has the Titan models roughly around 1/60 scale give or take a little in both directions for different models:
Warhound height of 45' / 60 = .75 x 12" = 9 inches (a little shorter than the Forge World model)
Reaver height of 85' / 60 = 1.4166 x 12" = 17 inches (a little taller than the Forge World model)
Warlord height of 100' / 60 = 1.666 x 12" = 20 inches (3" shorter than calculations based on Apocalypse datasheet illustrations)
Emperor height of 166' / 60 = 2.766 x 12" = 33 inches (6" shorter that calculations based on Apocalypse datasheet illustrations)

Most 40K vehicles seem to fit somewhere between 1/35 to 1/48, taking into account 'Heroic' proportions.
1/35 Warhound = 15.5 inches tall
1/48 Warhound = 11.25 inches tall
1/35 Reaver = 29 inches tall
1/48 Reaver = 21.25
(measurements have been rounded to nearest 0.25 of and inch)

So regardless of what scale you want to use, the FW Reaver Titan seems to be out of scale with the FW Warhound Titan.

Ok my apologies about the 'correct' scale comment, i'm aware of the confusion on alot of the models in wh40k. What I meant about the titans is the appropriate approximations of size, like for the imperator I do not like it anymore if it's beyond 40" at the tabletop, it's gets ridiculous already, some even built 6' models of the thing, how can you expect that to be put on tables? and still move?

You need to lok at the scale in EPIC. Its a much better view.

Warhound is extremely imposing over troops. Warlound and reaver even more so.

Check this thread it has a warlord in comarison to Lemans.
Now figure the Imper Ator is an order of magnitude bigger and there you are.
http://www.ifelix.co.uk/phoepic10_1.html

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Titan

Frazzled wrote:You need to lok at the scale in EPIC. Its a much better view.

Warhound is extremely imposing over troops. Warlound and reaver even more so.

Check this thread it has a warlord in comarison to Lemans.
Now figure the Imper Ator is an order of magnitude bigger and there you are.
http://www.ifelix.co.uk/phoepic10_1.html

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Titan

I still can't see why people link to the wikia rather than Lexicanum. At least Lexicanum references sources most of the time...

Frazzled wrote:
http://www.ifelix.co.uk/phoepic10_1.html

I really prefer the older, rounder Titans to the newer boxy ones.

Good for size comparison although the new warhound looks pretty big, but maybe it's the angle.

Lord Scythican wrote:

Mechanized Space Corps wrote:I've seen a ferris wheel that's one hundred and sixty feet and I was not impressed. My whole view of titans is shattered forever

And 60 m is only about 36 more feet tall. Myrtle Beach, S.C. has a ferris wheel that is 200 foot tall, which is only a few more feet tall than a titan at 60 meters (196.850 feet).

Personally I think it should be as tall Godzilla and it some movies the big guy is about the same height as a Imperator titan.

In the 1954 Japanese original, Dr. Yamane estimates that Godzilla was 50 meters tall (167 feet). Godzilla destroys Tokyo, but is later killed by the Oxygen Destroyer. A second Godzilla appears in the next movie: Godzilla Raids Again (1955). This creature is also 50 meters tall and would remain this size for the following Godzilla movies through to Terror or MechaGodzilla (1975).

In 1984, Toho presented Godzilla (Godzilla 1985 in the U.S.) as a direct sequel to the 1954 original, thus ignoring the existence of the 14 other films in the series. At the same time, the height of the new Godzilla was increased to 80 meters (267 feet). Toho probably did this to make Godzilla appears more imposing alongside Tokyo's modem skyscrapers. Godzilla is also 80 meters tall in Godzilla vs. Biollante (1989). In Godzilla vs. King Ghidora (1991), futurians attempt to prevent Godzilla's creation. However, their complicated time-travel plan backfires, and Godzilla is reborn in 1992, now towering at 100 meters (334 feet).

So basically in 1954 the Imperator Titan's size would have looked impressive. It really needs to be 100 meters at least in my opinion to look the part.

Wow, you really know Godzilla! If I'm ever on Who Wants to Be a Millionare and a Godzilla question comes up, can I use you for a Lifeline?

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You need to lok at the scale in EPIC. Its a much better view.

Warhound is extremely imposing over troops. Warlound and reaver even more so.

Check this thread it has a warlord in comarison to Lemans.
Now figure the Imper Ator is an order of magnitude bigger and there you are.
http://www.ifelix.co.uk/phoepic10_1.html

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Titan

I still can't see why people link to the wikia rather than Lexicanum. At least Lexicanum references sources most of the time...

bacause Google doesn't give a gak?

Why are people so hooked ont he "official fluff." The novels and art describe the Titans as massive, city cized war machines. We should go off of wha the real artists and thinkers say, not some boring, idiot GW or Forgeworld employees. We all want to believe that these things are bigger han the "official" crap, so lets just tell GW to screw off or change their numbers.

Yes, let's ignore the numbers that actually make sense in favor of ridiculous exaggerations for dramatic effect! Titans are miles tall and Space Marines are useful and relevant!

mindfield wrote
Ok my apologies about the 'correct' scale comment, i'm aware of the confusion on alot of the models in wh40k. What I meant about the titans is the appropriate approximations of size, like for the imperator I do not like it anymore if it's beyond 40" at the tabletop, it's gets ridiculous already, some even built 6' models of the thing, how can you expect that to be put on tables? and still move?

Sorry if it came off like I was criticizing your comment, that wasn't my intent

There was nothing wrong with your comment, and you just happened to give me an opening for a rant about Titan (model) sizes. I'm a little OCD sometimes, especially when it comes to measurements and GW scales drive me nuts when I try to figure out scale for a something like a gargant.

Frazzled wrote:
You need to lok at the scale in EPIC. Its a much better view.

EPIC scales for the larger vehicles is still off, especially with the Stompas and Gargants.


On a side note the Lexicanum article says the Reaver Titan is 40-50 meters (120-150 feet) high, but there is no citation. Is anyone aware of any fluff that support this height?

I seriously don't get the problem. We have the apoc datasheets to determine the height of all titans.
So what, the largest titans are "only" 55 metres? Well, whats so bad about it? Titans are already a pretty inefficient concept. Making them even larger would mean that they would become even larger targets, this time perhaps even large enough to be hit by orbiting warships.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You need to lok at the scale in EPIC. Its a much better view.

Warhound is extremely imposing over troops. Warlound and reaver even more so.

Check this thread it has a warlord in comarison to Lemans.
Now figure the Imper Ator is an order of magnitude bigger and there you are.
http://www.ifelix.co.uk/phoepic10_1.html

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Titan

I still can't see why people link to the wikia rather than Lexicanum. At least Lexicanum references sources most of the time...

There are sources listed for the wikia article, just not referenced.

Revenent Reiko wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You need to lok at the scale in EPIC. Its a much better view.

Warhound is extremely imposing over troops. Warlound and reaver even more so.

Check this thread it has a warlord in comarison to Lemans.
Now figure the Imper Ator is an order of magnitude bigger and there you are.
http://www.ifelix.co.uk/phoepic10_1.html

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Titan

I still can't see why people link to the wikia rather than Lexicanum. At least Lexicanum references sources most of the time...

There are sources listed for the wikia article, just not referenced.

Which is the very point I'm making. I'm not gonna read through every single page of every piece of info that collectively make up their sources.

What?
Even Lexicanum (of which i am a staunch advocate) only sources a lot of the time, rather than proper referencing.
It is annoying, but at least there is validity to it as opposed to not having any references at all.

Revenent Reiko wrote:What?
Even Lexicanum (of which i am a stout advocate) only sources a lot of the time, rather than proper referencing.
It is annoying, but at least there is validity to it as opposed to not having any references at all.

I think we're misunderstanding each other. What I don't like about the wiki is that they just lump all the sources together at the bottom, while Lexicanum more often than not references where each piece of fluff is taken from. Thus, you only have to look through one piece of fluff as opposed to everything they've taken information from.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Revenent Reiko wrote:What?
Even Lexicanum (of which i am a stout advocate) only sources a lot of the time, rather than proper referencing.
It is annoying, but at least there is validity to it as opposed to not having any references at all.

I think we're misunderstanding each other. What I don't like about the wiki is that they just lump all the sources together at the bottom, while Lexicanum more often than not references where each piece of fluff is taken from. Thus, you only have to look through one piece of fluff as opposed to everything they've taken information from.

Ahh, in which case yes, we are misunderstanding one another, my apologies

KingDeath wrote:I seriously don't get the problem. We have the apoc datasheets to determine the height of all titans.
So what, the largest titans are "only" 55 metres? Well, whats so bad about it? Titans are already a pretty inefficient concept. Making them even larger would mean that they would become even larger targets, this time perhaps even large enough to be hit by orbiting warships.

I think its because most of us are so used to reading about titans in the fluff or looking at art, where they're exaggerated, that we're dismayed when we discover the official numbers, which make something we thought was cool perceived to be less cool.

On the other hand, Im pretty sure warships could hit large titans now. Can't some armies call in orbital strikes that are effective against much smaller targets in-game.

Vrakk wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:

Mechanized Space Corps wrote:I've seen a ferris wheel that's one hundred and sixty feet and I was not impressed. My whole view of titans is shattered forever

And 60 m is only about 36 more feet tall. Myrtle Beach, S.C. has a ferris wheel that is 200 foot tall, which is only a few more feet tall than a titan at 60 meters (196.850 feet).

Personally I think it should be as tall Godzilla and it some movies the big guy is about the same height as a Imperator titan.

In the 1954 Japanese original, Dr. Yamane estimates that Godzilla was 50 meters tall (167 feet). Godzilla destroys Tokyo, but is later killed by the Oxygen Destroyer. A second Godzilla appears in the next movie: Godzilla Raids Again (1955). This creature is also 50 meters tall and would remain this size for the following Godzilla movies through to Terror or MechaGodzilla (1975).

In 1984, Toho presented Godzilla (Godzilla 1985 in the U.S.) as a direct sequel to the 1954 original, thus ignoring the existence of the 14 other films in the series. At the same time, the height of the new Godzilla was increased to 80 meters (267 feet). Toho probably did this to make Godzilla appears more imposing alongside Tokyo's modem skyscrapers. Godzilla is also 80 meters tall in Godzilla vs. Biollante (1989). In Godzilla vs. King Ghidora (1991), futurians attempt to prevent Godzilla's creation. However, their complicated time-travel plan backfires, and Godzilla is reborn in 1992, now towering at 100 meters (334 feet).

So basically in 1954 the Imperator Titan's size would have looked impressive. It really needs to be 100 meters at least in my opinion to look the part.

Wow, you really know Godzilla! If I'm ever on Who Wants to Be a Millionare and a Godzilla question comes up, can I use you for a Lifeline?

I sure do. Other kids slept with teddy bears when they were little. I slept with a hard plastic Godzilla that was 18 inches tall (45.7 cm).

Lord Scythican wrote:

Vrakk wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:

Mechanized Space Corps wrote:I've seen a ferris wheel that's one hundred and sixty feet and I was not impressed. My whole view of titans is shattered forever

And 60 m is only about 36 more feet tall. Myrtle Beach, S.C. has a ferris wheel that is 200 foot tall, which is only a few more feet tall than a titan at 60 meters (196.850 feet).

Personally I think it should be as tall Godzilla and it some movies the big guy is about the same height as a Imperator titan.

In the 1954 Japanese original, Dr. Yamane estimates that Godzilla was 50 meters tall (167 feet). Godzilla destroys Tokyo, but is later killed by the Oxygen Destroyer. A second Godzilla appears in the next movie: Godzilla Raids Again (1955). This creature is also 50 meters tall and would remain this size for the following Godzilla movies through to Terror or MechaGodzilla (1975).

In 1984, Toho presented Godzilla (Godzilla 1985 in the U.S.) as a direct sequel to the 1954 original, thus ignoring the existence of the 14 other films in the series. At the same time, the height of the new Godzilla was increased to 80 meters (267 feet). Toho probably did this to make Godzilla appears more imposing alongside Tokyo's modem skyscrapers. Godzilla is also 80 meters tall in Godzilla vs. Biollante (1989). In Godzilla vs. King Ghidora (1991), futurians attempt to prevent Godzilla's creation. However, their complicated time-travel plan backfires, and Godzilla is reborn in 1992, now towering at 100 meters (334 feet).

So basically in 1954 the Imperator Titan's size would have looked impressive. It really needs to be 100 meters at least in my opinion to look the part.

Wow, you really know Godzilla! If I'm ever on Who Wants to Be a Millionare and a Godzilla question comes up, can I use you for a Lifeline?

I sure do. Other kids slept with teddy bears when they were little. I slept with a hard plastic Godzilla that was 18 inches tall (45.7 cm).

I may have found my long lost brother.

Fething huge, I just like the idea of even the tabletop version being like 3 feet tall.

I know warhounds are supposed to be around 17 meters tall which is stil pretty big I think 55 may be a little small for an imperator, in my mind a reaver would be late 20s early 30s with its missile rack, a warlord would be late 40s with the Imperator topping out in the 60s somewhere.

Late 20s, early 30s? I've got images of titans with chin beards and beer bellies.

iirc in one of the books about dark apostle marduk it says the titan landers were around 150 long and cigar shape. so im going with 150m. and apparently the new warlords are the size of emperors in the new stuff. which is y someone made a 9 foot tall warlord. but warhammer 40k minis are 1:64 scale so a reaver would be around 25m a warhound would be 16m so a emperor would be 64m im confused.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.tanksandtrolls.co.uk/40KWarlordTitanNEW.htm