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.

I quite like the look of AT. Should I get the Grand Master Edition? If I get the big box should I purchase anything else at the same time?

The game is great and I see a lot of Brits playing it. You should have people near you who play.

Grandmaster box isn't a great value, the battle group is significantly better and you can get two for the cost of the GME. Don't bother buying cardboard terminals, these are better:
http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/356057-erasable-titanicus-terminals/

The rules pdf is out there online if you search hard enough and want to read through them before committing or just check your local game stores to see who's playing. It's sorta like Battletech meets WH40k, a fun game I'm glad I bought into.

Yes.

If you like maneuvering, quite balanced and tactical gameplay with meaningful decisions, massive land battleships, resource management that will not smother you and city blocks vaporizing in nuclear fire, this is the game for you.

Rules Set + Battleforce is the best starting point, as this gives you a fully playable army of okay size. GME isn't bad, it's just a bit limited in its offerings.

Dont get GME, it offers a fair amount of savings but its model selection is not good.
Battlegroup is the only valid starting point in terms of minis.


In regards to investment value, the game from a core rules set point, is better then 40k.
But it is a specialist game and a skirmish game(3-5 titans per force) so it goes under the radar for many clubs as you can only get the game from GW web shop or 3rd party shops.
Find a club that playes the game before you commit to it.

Note: the battle group may be the best value in GW’s product line.

If you’re playing at 2000 points the BG is 1200-1250 points for $144 on Amazon. Name a 40k box set that’s 1200 points for that cheap. Any of the the apocalypse boxes?

One of the reasons the GME is subtly less value than you'd think is that the enclosed terrain isn't nearly enough to fill a table. Oh, you can buy more of it, but it's not cheap.

When you're starting out, IMO it's better to invest in plastic sprues filled with actual Titan parts, and the battlegroup set is the best way to do that. You can always improvise the terrain at first, or buy the cheapo DZC stuff (which I find to be somewhat out of scale and stylistically off, but I recognize its value in getting a table together quickly).

terrain aint the issue as i see it. 2 warlord and 6 knights is the worst selection for a 2player box. its like a 40k 2player box that consists of 2 baneblades and 20 scions.
it was a super rushed product whitout any thoughts whatsoever, infact the whole titan release schedule was backwards. they began with the warlord and ended whit the hounds when it should have been the other way around.

a GME consisting of 6 warhounds would have been a mutch, mutch better 2player box.

the sooner GME is out of circulation the better!

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
terrain aint the issue as i see it. 2 warlord and 6 knights is the worst selection for a 2player box. its like a 40k 2player box that consists of 2 baneblades and 20 scions.

That’s funny!

Thank you all for your helpful comments. Got to love the Dakka community.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
terrain aint the issue as i see it. 2 warlord and 6 knights is the worst selection for a 2player box. its like a 40k 2player box that consists of 2 baneblades and 20 scions.
it was a super rushed product whitout any thoughts whatsoever, infact the whole titan release schedule was backwards. they began with the warlord and ended whit the hounds when it should have been the other way around.

a GME consisting of 6 warhounds would have been a mutch, mutch better 2player box.

the sooner GME is out of circulation the better!

I'm sure James Hewitt tweeted that he wanted the box to be Reavers & Warhounds, but was overruled because the Warlord was more iconic, but I can't find it now...

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
terrain aint the issue as i see it. 2 warlord and 6 knights is the worst selection for a 2player box. its like a 40k 2player box that consists of 2 baneblades and 20 scions.
it was a super rushed product whitout any thoughts whatsoever, infact the whole titan release schedule was backwards. they began with the warlord and ended whit the hounds when it should have been the other way around.

a GME consisting of 6 warhounds would have been a mutch, mutch better 2player box.

The point of my comment about the terrain involved value and usefulness, and it's unclear whether 6 Warhounds would have provided that. A Warlord is very useful for most players and most maniples. Three Warhounds are probably less so. And lots of people bought the GME box to use on their own, and in that instance 2 Warlords will almost certainly see more play for more people than 6 Warhounds. The terrain is the least valuable thing in the box just because it's not a useful amount.

Besides, all Warhounds would create some game distortions too (and this coming from an Audax player). If I was going to demo the game for a couple new players, I'd probably start them with Reavers, the midpoint Titan. They'd give the most balanced AT experience.