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.
2021/04/19 13:26:07
Subject: Re:Adeptus Titanicus news and rumours - Warmaster, Loyalist Legios and Transfers up for preorder
They've clarified Voidbreaker to be as crap as we feared...
Also this:
Q. The Warmaster’s shoulder plasma blastguns have a +1 in their Long range rather than the -1 of the Warhound plasma blastguns. Is this a mistake? A. No, this difference is intentional; a raft of greater reactor controls and parameters enable the Warmaster to increase the effective range of the plasma blastgun when housed within its shoulders
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/19 13:41:17
2021/04/19 13:41:14
Subject: Adeptus Titanicus news and rumours - Warmaster, Loyalist Legios and Transfers up for preorder
SamusDrake wrote: Disappointing, but at least the Seneschal's banner can now take the Acastus. Not great but it is something.
I mean, it is not a lot, but I am actually super happy about the Seneschal change. In my fluff the head of my Knight house uses an Acastus, so now I can actually do that again.
And to the voidbreaker comment above, yeah, that is a shame. Really relegates the Volkite weapons to highly niche uses. Probably only the Warlord one is worth deploying at all, and even that is marginal.
2021/04/19 15:17:16
Subject: Re:Adeptus Titanicus news and rumours - New FAQ Page 329
And to the voidbreaker comment above, yeah, that is a shame. Really relegates the Volkite weapons to highly niche uses. Probably only the Warlord one is worth deploying at all, and even that is marginal.
Still hoping that there's some key detail missing from the writeup on those weapons; with a combination of extra traits like Blast, Rapid, or Shieldbane it's another story.
2021/04/19 15:35:17
Subject: Adeptus Titanicus news and rumours - New FAQ Page 329
I mean, it is not a lot, but I am actually super happy about the Seneschal change. In my fluff the head of my Knight house uses an Acastus, so now I can actually do that again.
That sounds pretty cool. Did you come up with a name for your House?
Casual gaming, mostly solo-coop these days.
2021/04/19 15:42:59
Subject: Adeptus Titanicus news and rumours - New FAQ Page 329
Chopstick wrote: So the most damaging shoulder weapon get a bonus to hit is intentional? That's some genius balancing right there.
It is also +10 points vs the warhound version, and competing for reactor heat with the main arm plasma.
Also, considering the base Titan is 1040pts with the current kit options, plus whatever Maniple you’re taking because it’s an Auxiliary, you may simply not have an extra 80pts to get twin plasmas in a lot of games.
Edit: should give the Volkites Shieldbane as well. Or at least a higher Voidbreaker value.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/04/19 15:47:26
"Three months? I'm going to go crazy …and I'm taking you with me!"
— Vala Mal Doran
2021/04/19 15:54:00
Subject: Re:Adeptus Titanicus news and rumours - New FAQ Page 329
Starting to think they need to expand the bands of cover past -2 (50% obscurement) if they're going to be throwing plus 1's to hit around like candy. Especially considering the very strong wargear that fureans and ignatum can bring on top of this tuff.
Right how the only way to get better than -2 is with a trait or stratagem.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/19 15:54:40
Do you play 30k? It'd be a lot cooler if you did.
2021/04/19 16:02:39
Subject: Re:Adeptus Titanicus news and rumours - New FAQ Page 329
I mean, it is not a lot, but I am actually super happy about the Seneschal change. In my fluff the head of my Knight house uses an Acastus, so now I can actually do that again.
That sounds pretty cool. Did you come up with a name for your House?
Sure did! House Chesapeake!
Hope that comes through, never posted an image here before.
2021/04/19 16:07:58
Subject: Re:Adeptus Titanicus news and rumours - New FAQ Page 329
Crablezworth wrote: Starting to think they need to expand the bands of cover past -2 (50% obscurement) if they're going to be throwing plus 1's to hit around like candy. Especially considering the very strong wargear that fureans and ignatum can bring on top of this tuff.
Right how the only way to get better than -2 is with a trait or stratagem.
Wouldn't really say they are that common, except for a few select Legios that have them. -2 is plenty effective as well as really common on decently dense areas of well made tables. It's also not like that one single blob of doom called Warmaster that takes up half the points of your opponents army couldn't be crippled by hitting it with Blind Bombardment and such tricks all day long.
Traits and stratagems should be the territory where you go to get beyond -2. Normally, just get out of sight instead.
I mean, it is not a lot, but I am actually super happy about the Seneschal change. In my fluff the head of my Knight house uses an Acastus, so now I can actually do that again.
That sounds pretty cool. Did you come up with a name for your House?
Sure did! House Chesapeake!
Hope that comes through, never posted an image here before.
Crablezworth wrote: Starting to think they need to expand the bands of cover past -2 (50% obscurement) if they're going to be throwing plus 1's to hit around like candy. Especially considering the very strong wargear that fureans and ignatum can bring on top of this tuff.
Right how the only way to get better than -2 is with a trait or stratagem.
Wouldn't really say they are that common, except for a few select Legios that have them. -2 is plenty effective as well as really common on decently dense areas of well made tables. It's also not like that one single blob of doom called Warmaster that takes up half the points of your opponents army couldn't be crippled by hitting it with Blind Bombardment and such tricks all day long.
Traits and stratagems should be the territory where you go to get beyond -2. Normally, just get out of sight instead.
I don't disagree, until gw confuses a - with + on a card they printed. They claim in the faq if wasn't a mistake, we'll see. They also may or may not have made a mistake with the warbringer nemesis carapace weapons the new book, not sure if its an intentional change but haven't seen the warbringer cards from the battlegroup box to see if they've been updated. If gw is going to be hit and miss with some stuff it might be the better option, especially with so many things having a 90 arc now.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/04/20 00:09:13
Do you play 30k? It'd be a lot cooler if you did.
2021/04/19 18:26:28
Subject: Re:Adeptus Titanicus news and rumours - New FAQ Page 329
I mean, it is not a lot, but I am actually super happy about the Seneschal change. In my fluff the head of my Knight house uses an Acastus, so now I can actually do that again.
That sounds pretty cool. Did you come up with a name for your House?
Sure did! House Chesapeake!
Spoiler:
Hope that comes through, never posted an image here before.
I'm not going to lie, I completely read that as House Cheapskate until I saw the first reply...
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
2021/04/19 19:29:39
Subject: Adeptus Titanicus news and rumours - New FAQ Page 329
I mean, it is not a lot, but I am actually super happy about the Seneschal change. In my fluff the head of my Knight house uses an Acastus, so now I can actually do that again.
That sounds pretty cool. Did you come up with a name for your House?
Sure did! House Chesapeake!
Spoiler:
Hope that comes through, never posted an image here before.
I'm not going to lie, I completely read that as House Cheapskate until I saw the first reply...
So did I, and wondered if it was 3D printed. But very very nice looking model
2021/04/20 07:42:50
Subject: Re:Adeptus Titanicus news and rumours - New FAQ Page 329
I don't disagree, until gw confuses a - with + on a card they printed. They claim in the faq if wasn't a mistake, we'll see. They also may or may not have made a mistake with the warbringer nemesis carapace weapons the new book, not sure if its an intentional change but haven't seen the warbringer cards from the battlegroup box to see if they've been updated. If gw is going to be hit and miss with some stuff it might be the better option, especially with so many things having a 90 arc now.
I thought it was a typo on the card as well, but it is consistent with the weapon chart in codex loyal legios.
2021/04/20 16:11:46
Subject: Re:Adeptus Titanicus news and rumours - New FAQ Page 329
I don't disagree, until gw confuses a - with + on a card they printed. They claim in the faq if wasn't a mistake, we'll see. They also may or may not have made a mistake with the warbringer nemesis carapace weapons the new book, not sure if its an intentional change but haven't seen the warbringer cards from the battlegroup box to see if they've been updated. If gw is going to be hit and miss with some stuff it might be the better option, especially with so many things having a 90 arc now.
I thought it was a typo on the card as well, but it is consistent with the weapon chart in codex loyal legios.
Sure but this is gw, whose to say one sunk cost wasn't just followed by another (ie they may have messed up in the book first and were forced to double down on the cards rather then re-print the book). Evidence for this? The warbringer's guns are both wrong in the book too, and the latest cards weren't updated to the new change (90 arc from corridor arc).
Do you play 30k? It'd be a lot cooler if you did.
2021/04/20 19:24:23
Subject: Adeptus Titanicus news and rumours - New FAQ Page 329
The warbringer getting 90 arc for carapace is sorta iffy, it makes sense physically because it does swivel left/right but considering the new book just made the upgrade that turns corridor into 90 arc a universal piece of wargear its sortof another knock against warlords being that warbringers now get this essentially for free. Not sure if this was intentional either because the warbringer cards in the battlegroup box still show corridor arc.
Do you play 30k? It'd be a lot cooler if you did.
2021/04/23 13:16:43
Subject: Re:Adeptus Titanicus news and rumours - New FAQ Page 329
Digging into the Loyalist Legios book for possible hints about new Titans, I'm annoyed to find that the writer(s) seem to use 'type' and 'class' interchangeably.
My vague understanding of older fluff--which may be mistaken--is that type used to be a broad designation: Scout, Battle or Emperor, much like 'destroyer, cruiser or battleship'. Meanwhile, class referred to a particular design or chassis. The Imperator class and Warmonger class were both Emperor-type Titans.
Then again, my Battlefleet Gothic may be showing, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
In any case, the fluff in Loyalist Legios mixes up 'class' and 'type' all over the place. One paragraph calls Reavers a type, and another calls it a class. So whenever the Jackal, Nightgaunt, Rapier and Nemesis are mentioned, it's hard to tell what they're talking about. Seems odd for FW to be so loose with the terminology. I thought they were all about the nitty-gritty details?
Still, given that every named Titan model so far has been a distinct chassis, rather than simply a different weapons configuration a la the Knights, it seems reasonable to suppose that the same will hold for the Jackal, Rapier and friends.
(Incidentally, which ancient bloody tech-priest decided that five Titan names should all start with 'war'?)
Meanwhile, my fears about the comma / full stop ratio have once again come true. Every effing paragraph! The fluff would be at least 200% more engaging and lively if a few of those interminable sentences were split.
The proofreading also upholds the typical shining FW standards. Just skimming through the Christmas Amazo... er... Legio Solaria section, it twice calls them 'Solaris'. Come on guys, that's a simple global find-and-replace; don't you even do a style sheet check? And the House Procon Vi text on p65, second paragraph, says 'less' when it should be 'lest'.
Oh, and the Natrix Shock Lance weapon rules summary gives its short range modifier as '1'. Not +1 or -1. Just 1. It's pretty obvious what it's meant to be, but... sheesh.
(EDIT: Turns out the FAQ has fixed this. Which just goes to prove the old universally acknowledged truth that anyone pointing out proofreading errors will overlook something themselves... ahem.)
I don't really trust anything oddball in that section to be a genuine updated rule, especially the 90-degree arc on the Warbringer carapace, because typos are common in summary tables. To quote Andy Chambers circa 3rd edition 40K: "I hate summaries--they always, always do this!"
Whinging aside, it's an excellent compilation/reference book, and the extra fluff on each Legio is great to see.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/23 14:13:03
2021/04/25 11:10:33
Subject: Re:Adeptus Titanicus news and rumours - New FAQ Page 329
Zenithfleet wrote: I don't really trust anything oddball in that section to be a genuine updated rule, especially the 90-degree arc on the Warbringer carapace, because typos are common in summary tables. To quote Andy Chambers circa 3rd edition 40K: "I hate summaries--they always, always do this!"
I really wish someone had asked him two follow-up questions:
A, Why do they always do this?
B, How can you change the way they're produced so they don't always do this?
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
2021/04/25 12:57:06
Subject: Re:Adeptus Titanicus news and rumours - New FAQ Page 329
Zenithfleet wrote: I don't really trust anything oddball in that section to be a genuine updated rule, especially the 90-degree arc on the Warbringer carapace, because typos are common in summary tables. To quote Andy Chambers circa 3rd edition 40K: "I hate summaries--they always, always do this!"
I really wish someone had asked him two follow-up questions:
A, Why do they always do this?
B, How can you change the way they're produced so they don't always do this?
Having worked as an editor/proofreader, I can try answering for him.
Short answers:
A) The density of information and the amount of cross-checking involved makes errors more likely to slip through.
B) You need quality editing and proofreading processes. Unfortunately, that takes time, money and staff that even large organisations increasingly can't be bothered with these days.
Longer explanation in the spoiler tags for TL/DR purposes:
Spoiler:
Summary tables contain a large amount of information from many other sources: dozens of different pages within the same document, several hard-copy books, multiple webpages, or some other thing. When the writer creates the summary, they're going back and forth between many pages/documents. If working from hard copy, they have to make sure they read and type in the right number or word from the right source, every time. If working from electronic sources, they have to make sure not to accidentally copy-paste to the wrong place, or paste in the same thing twice because they thought they hit Ctrl+C and didn't, etc.
Obviously the answer is proofreading, right? But errors are more likely to slip past a proofreader if they're in a summary table. There's much more cross-checking involved than there is in a typical page of text.
If I were to proofread a page of fluff on Legio Robotnik, I could rely mostly on my own knowledge of spelling and grammar to catch misspelled words, punctuation mistakes and so on. Only if a number or unusual name appeared--like a sentence saying Robotnik has 150 Titans on Planet Mobius--would I need to stop and check it against some other page or source, or my own master list of numbers and names, to make sure it's 'Mobius' rather than 'Moebius' and that the value '150' is correct. "Hang on, they said 140 in the box on the previous page. Writer! Which number is the right one?"
However, for a summary table, I'd have to check every single number and word against its original source.
Just looking at the Reaver weapon table in the Loyalist Legios book, there are 10 rows, each containing 17 entries (if you include each numerical value in the 'repair weapon' column). That's 170 things to cross-check in less than a page of space. There's no shortcut. It's slow and tedious work. And it's easy to make a mistake, because numbers are easier to mix up than words, and because your eye is constantly moving between the document you're checking and multiple sources.
(If you're a fan of the game and have all the weapon stats memorised, errors might instantly leap out at you. But most editors and proofreaders aren't experts or devotees of whatever they're editing and proofreading this week, even if they're employed in-house rather than freelancing. Even if they are, they'd still double-check everything just to be on the safe side rather than trusting their memories.)
Because of this, errors are both easier to make and harder to spot in a summary table than in a typical page of text.
To compensate, you need quality editing and proofreading. But that's easier said than done.
Quality editing processes, in practice, mean two or more rounds of checking. Ideally you need a different person to check the document each time--you need a fresh pair of eyes to spot anything that the first checker missed. You also need to do at least one round of this checking on actual printed material. It's amazing how obvious errors go unnoticed if you're looking at a screen.
Unfortunately, because editing and proofreading happens near the end of the publishing process, there's constant pressure on editors to get it done faster and cut corners--especially if the writers missed their own deadlines. Managers are always trying to speed things up and employ fewer people to do the same work. Why have two different people check a document if we can get by on one? Why do we have to print something out, mark up the errors and then make all the same changes onscreen--why not just do all the proofing on a screen to save time? Why even bother giving the editors the Word files before they're laid out--can't they just check it in InDesign? In fact, do we even need to pay people for this? Can't writers be trusted to write a bloody sentence? Can't the marketing and communications people just run a spell check? And so on.
It's bad enough in large organisations that have a tight release schedule to meet. A small organisation can see the time, staff and money required as a luxury it can't afford.
Incidentally, the worst proofreading from GW publications I've ever seen was in Fanatic magazines (for the specialist games before they were called specialist games). But Fanatic wasn't much more than two guys in a cow shed, so it's understandable.
2021/04/25 13:16:34
Subject: Re:Adeptus Titanicus news and rumours - New FAQ Page 329
I think those are all fine points when it comes to summary tables. I still think nothing beats having the people who write on it also play it. This has been a sore point with gw's engine kill articles, there have been errors you know simply wouldn't occur with someone who has even a cursory experience with the game. The article about the new volkite weapons comes to mind where they had to fix most of the article because the author wrote it all with a misunderstanding of voidbraker's mechanics. Writing about something is a bit like photography, it helps to already be familiar with the subject matter. I like photographing skateboarding, but as someone who doesn't skateboard I'd be useless to any skateboard publication, it's like speaking a different language. "That shot of the backslide heel flip pop shove it was great" "the what now?". Especially if asked do anything past photographing a skateboarder, like writing about the tricks he landed.
I'm happy they got an faq out so fast but honestly they suck at writing stratagems. They've decided to use each and any interchangeably when describing stratagem use but also want us to instinctively know any means "once per game" and each means "every turn", and they're basically synonyms without more context. All of this added to the fact that they clearly know how to write a sentence like "once per game" but have chosen to only do so sparingly for no reason. This book was a chance to rectify and fix that, it didn't. Like others have pointed out the fluff takes a hit to with them constantly switching between the terms class and type to where it's obvious even they don't know which one they're referring to either.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/04/25 13:19:21
Do you play 30k? It'd be a lot cooler if you did.
2021/04/25 13:33:10
Subject: Adeptus Titanicus news and rumours - New FAQ Page 329
I was reading the new book and noticed there's no Tempestus, seems strange to not have them in this book since the Traitor book will presumably have Tempestor idk where Tempestus are supposed to be in that case.
Every effing paragraph! The fluff would be at least 200% more engaging and lively if a few of those interminable sentences were split.
