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.

 insaniak wrote:

 TwilightSparkles wrote:

Natfka have posted an anon rumour that suggests the Grand Master box is not worth the money as you only need one Warlord per force typically..

Pffft. Who buys models because they need them...?

right?

I'm just interested in what the "standard" point level is gonna be, and the associated costs for base chassis & weapons.

how they setup the maniples and any restrictions that arise can make having more than 1 warlord moot.

I do want to run more than one but a bunch of reavers would be badass.

Racerguy180 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 TwilightSparkles wrote:

Natfka have posted an anon rumour that suggests the Grand Master box is not worth the money as you only need one Warlord per force typically..

Pffft. Who buys models because they need them...?

right?

I'm just interested in what the "standard" point level is gonna be, and the associated costs for base chassis & weapons.

how they setup the maniples and any restrictions that arise can make having more than 1 warlord moot.

I do want to run more than one but a bunch of reavers warhounds would be badass.

FTFY.

I’m building a standard Demi-legio: two Warlords, three Reavers, six Warhounds, five banners of Knights. Then an Imperator when Tony C. finally gets tired of people asking.

The Grand Master box is basically a down-payment on that as far as I’m concerned.

That’s the kind of hair brained logic that will also see me buy the Legio Cupboard. Always kept in reserved on sprue in their glorious PlasticBattlegrey livery.

Huzzah!

Regarding game size, in the WD preview James Hewitt answers the question by saying that the full game usually includes a couple of titans and few banners of knights per side. So worry not, the Grand Master will see use in its entirety and Natfka can piss the right off as like the baseless rumourmongers that they always are.

Edit: more accurate quote: "four or five titans and maybe a banner of knights".

 Sherrypie wrote:
Regarding game size, in the WD preview James Hewitt answers the question by saying that the full game usually includes a couple of titans and few banners of knights per side. So worry not, the Grand Master will see use in its entirety and Natfka can piss the right off as like the baseless rumourmongers that they always are.

Edit: more accurate quote: "four or five titans and maybe a banner of knights".

I just don't understand why people go to naftka and BoLS anymore. All I ever see there is outright lies, wild rumors with no basis in reality, terrible tactics discussions and very unfunny dry humor that only their fanbases understand. When it comes to getting news, I've pretty much only stuck two the official community site. It's far too reliable for me to go anywhere else.

 Mr_Rose wrote:
I’m building a standard Demi-legio: two Warlords, three Reavers, six Warhounds, five banners of Knights. Then an Imperator when Tony C. finally gets tired of people asking.

The Grand Master box is basically a down-payment on that as far as I’m concerned.

Yup, demi-Legio and a Knight Household for me, hopefully the latter becomes a viable list of its own eventually once the big'un FW Knights are available. What's odd for me is I don't have any idea what faction and theme to go with for my Legio. Normally I have all this stuff planned out well before I buy a single model, but for this I'm as hype for new background material as I am for the models.

Okay, odd question for longtime Epic/Adeptus Titanicus players. I have the original 1E AT rules, and I've been wondering of late what the 2E rules ("Titan Legions") changed, and if they were worth picking up for use with my old models. Unfortunately, the online articles I've been looking over haven't been clear if there were any significant changes between 1E and 2E.

I also likewise ran across an Adeptus Titanicus PDF rulebook last night - I think it was from the GW web site before they took down their specialist game rules. Would that have been the 3E rules?

I'm still excited for this release, but the price has me worried, as I've overbought on my hobbies of late and may end up not having the funds for this at release, and I may have to satisfy myself with older versions until I can save up for the new version.

I’m a weird case in that I’m going to build a Legio Audax maniple. So I only need Warhounds (maybe some Knights too), and those won’t be arriving until October or November. Hence, I’m going to have a wait until I can start building Titans.

I’m still thinking about getting the GM box though. I can move the Warlords to interested parties and hang onto that lovely terrain...

The Wathounds are going to be awesome.

My Legion is going to be lighter as opposed to Warlord-ier

A part of me wants to do a canon legion... another part of me wants to give a nod to my orgins and paint the titans up in the colour scheme of a Battletech Merc Regiment

 TwilightSparkles wrote:
Natfka have posted an anon rumour that suggests the Grand Master box is not worth the money as you only need one Warlord per force typically..

That's a bizarre criticism.

I'm sure that most Ultramarine players don't need the Deathguard that come with Dark Imperium. Can't imagine there are many slots for Sigmarines in a Nighthaunt army either. And last time I checked you couldn't take Goliath gangers in an Escher gang.

The box is designed for two players. Of course it's going to have more than what one player needs.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 TwilightSparkles wrote:
Natfka have posted an anon rumour that suggests the Grand Master box is not worth the money as you only need one Warlord per force typically..

That's a bizarre criticism.

I'm sure that most Ultramarine players don't need the Deathguard that come with Dark Imperium. Can't imagine there are many slots for Sigmarines in a Nighthaunt army either. And last time I checked you couldn't take Goliath gangers in an Escher gang.

The box is designed for two players. Of course it's going to have more than what one player needs.

Except that everything within can be used by one person without any hitch too, moreso here than usually, so it is better value for single persons too. Also, that Natfka rumour is just bogus that contradicts what the actual designer of the game has said, so no worries.

But yeah, that line of criticism is very weird. As if people wouldn't buy more models than they'd need at one game ever.

 Togusa wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Regarding game size, in the WD preview James Hewitt answers the question by saying that the full game usually includes a couple of titans and few banners of knights per side. So worry not, the Grand Master will see use in its entirety and Natfka can piss the right off as like the baseless rumourmongers that they always are.

Edit: more accurate quote: "four or five titans and maybe a banner of knights".

I just don't understand why people go to naftka and BoLS anymore. All I ever see there is outright lies, wild rumors with no basis in reality, terrible tactics discussions and very unfunny dry humor that only their fanbases understand. When it comes to getting news, I've pretty much only stuck two the official community site. It's far too reliable for me to go anywhere else.

There's a subset of news sites that have found they can generate decent income for themselves purely through advertising links and clicks on their site. So they give up publishing proper notes and put a spin on everything that makes for "headline news". Outlandish claims; twisted truths; whatever they can say which makes things sound extreme so that they can get all the clicks to their site. IT's very obvious but it works, plus it gets people constantly talking about their site which means new people go and check it out just for that. Even if you go there just for a laugh you're working the system in their advantage.

 Stormonu wrote:
Okay, odd question for longtime Epic/Adeptus Titanicus players. I have the original 1E AT rules, and I've been wondering of late what the 2E rules ("Titan Legions") changed, and if they were worth picking up for use with my old models. Unfortunately, the online articles I've been looking over haven't been clear if there were any significant changes between 1E and 2E.

I also likewise ran across an Adeptus Titanicus PDF rulebook last night - I think it was from the GW web site before they took down their specialist game rules. Would that have been the 3E rules?

I'm still excited for this release, but the price has me worried, as I've overbought on my hobbies of late and may end up not having the funds for this at release, and I may have to satisfy myself with older versions until I can save up for the new version.

Second Edition basically tightened up the rules set, so that all the model types were using the same system (looking at you, gargants and the 'quick' "Epic Damage System"). It moved from being a titan game with 'normal' units fighting their own battle and trying not to get crushed into a more rounded combined arms game, where there was more interaction between giant robots and hapless soldiers. Titans were still awesome though. It was the game that brought in the popular 'army cards' for troop selection and the targeting grid for damaging titans (and the up/down and left/right dice). The Emperor-class titans and Mega-gargants were introduced in this version. Unlike 40k 3rd to 7th, you couldn't use 1st edition stats with 2nd edition rules, they're too different.

Out of all the Epic to date, it's my favourite version (but I'll happily play any version of Epic at any time).

Finger crossed that warhound titan is small enough to fit all the gun so you don't have to buy FW weapons. Even if that mean getting 2 kits just to get to dual the 2 same guns.

Chopstick wrote:
Finger crossed that warhound titan is small enough to fit all the gun so you don't have to buy FW weapons. Even if that mean getting 2 kits just to get to dual the 2 same guns.

I'd expect it to be this size http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=28069&start=15 (there's a few size comparison shots that include this mini alongside the new reaver and warlord, and it scales perfectly, despite that the old reavers were far smaller than the new reavers).

I still hope that FW makes some of the original wolf-like heads for the Warhound not just the shoebox heads.

 TwilightSparkles wrote:
At launch the original Titanicus was Titans only.

Natfka have posted an anon rumour that suggests the Grand Master box is not worth the money as you only need one Warlord per force typically..

Which seems unlikely. TBH by now WD subscribers should have their copy, it'll be on UK shelves Friday morning so surprised we have not seen more images?

Eh? I'm planning to have multiple huge legions. I've got 6 legions I'd like to do at the least with multiple Warlords. The grandmaster box is my first purchase.

link to images from the latest WD

So when the game was being designed, the plan was for resin titans, which would be kinda pricey, so a lot of time went into making sure people could play a game with whatever Titans they wanted (up to a maniple). After all, it would suck if people got really excited, spend a load of time and money on a Reaver and four Warhounds only to discover that you *suck* if you don't take at least one Warlord. The game was tested at various levels - at one point, 5 Warhounds vs 5 Warlords was tested. The warhounds lost, naturally, but they gave a good account of themselves.

At least, that's what I heard.

 zedmeister wrote:
Eh? I'm planning to have multiple huge legions. I've got 6 legions I'd like to do at the least with multiple Warlords. The grandmaster box is my first purchase.

Knew we could count on you for the correct answer.

 lagoon83 wrote:
So when the game was being designed, the plan was for resin titans, which would be kinda pricey, so a lot of time went into making sure people could play a game with whatever Titans they wanted (up to a maniple). After all, it would suck if people got really excited, spend a load of time and money on a Reaver and four Warhounds only to discover that you *suck* if you don't take at least one Warlord. The game was tested at various levels - at one point, 5 Warhounds vs 5 Warlords was tested. The warhounds lost, naturally, but they gave a good account of themselves.

At least, that's what I heard.

 zedmeister wrote:
Eh? I'm planning to have multiple huge legions. I've got 6 legions I'd like to do at the least with multiple Warlords. The grandmaster box is my first purchase.

Knew we could count on you for the correct answer.

That's great to hear, never hurts to have flexibility in the game. Judging by the White Dwarf report, the game play itself seems tasty, my BFG side is tingling with joy to have the smaller nimbler knights run rings around cumbersome titans like that.

James, can you tell us anything about the distribution of weapon profiles in the game or do we have to wait until the release? I'm very curious as to how different roles and shapes are spread around the bodies, like what type of weapons use the flame template, can knight guns do anything but plink away at some void shields, how much synergy you built into combinations of shield-strippers and hull killers and so forth?

(And most importantly, will the ursus claw be awesome? 'Cause it's awesome.)

 Stormonu wrote:
Okay, odd question for longtime Epic/Adeptus Titanicus players. I have the original 1E AT rules, and I've been wondering of late what the 2E rules ("Titan Legions") changed, and if they were worth picking up for use with my old models. Unfortunately, the online articles I've been looking over haven't been clear if there were any significant changes between 1E and 2E.

I also likewise ran across an Adeptus Titanicus PDF rulebook last night - I think it was from the GW web site before they took down their specialist game rules. Would that have been the 3E rules?.

Potentially controversial opinion here but I don’t consider Epic as an edition of AT. The 2nd edition of AT was released in parts in one of the old Black Library magazines, which is probably the PDF you mentioned. Epic is a separate line, currently on its fourth edition (Epic: Armageddon).

Every version of AT has been different in detail but the core concepts of manoeuvrability vs firepower and small forces driven by hidden orders remain consistent.
Epic started from that point but instead of individual titanic vehicles you have entire companies of infantry and tanks equipped with small arms (relatively speaking) - it diverged hardest with Epic: 40,000 which streamlined things too much and nearly killed the game but Epic: Armageddon is actually a really great game spoilt by terrible (non-existent) ongoing support.

Yarp.

Of particular interest to me is that at least the Apocalypse Launchers, as carapace Weapons, have a fixed forward arc.

Given those are solid shield strippers, that really adds to the deployment challenge. Against someone else who knows what they’re doing, a straight ‘in my sights from the get go’ risks them doing the same.

The battle report (Warlord and Reaver vs Warlord and Knight Banner) is over quite quickly, as you’d expect any demo game to be.

Reckon once there’s a bit more metal on the field, that’ll help to extend games somewhat.

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
Okay, odd question for longtime Epic/Adeptus Titanicus players. I have the original 1E AT rules, and I've been wondering of late what the 2E rules ("Titan Legions") changed, and if they were worth picking up for use with my old models. Unfortunately, the online articles I've been looking over haven't been clear if there were any significant changes between 1E and 2E.

I also likewise ran across an Adeptus Titanicus PDF rulebook last night - I think it was from the GW web site before they took down their specialist game rules. Would that have been the 3E rules?.

Potentially controversial opinion here but I don’t consider Epic as an edition of AT. The 2nd edition of AT was released in parts in one of the old Black Library magazines, which is probably the PDF you mentioned. Epic is a separate line, currently on its fourth edition (Epic: Armageddon).

Every version of AT has been different in detail but the core concepts of manoeuvrability vs firepower and small forces driven by hidden orders remain consistent.
Epic started from that point but instead of individual titanic vehicles you have entire companies of infantry and tanks equipped with small arms (relatively speaking) - it diverged hardest with Epic: 40,000 which streamlined things too much and nearly killed the game but Epic: Armageddon is actually a really great game spoilt by terrible (non-existent) ongoing support.

It's all part of the same big happy family. AT2 was spread over several issues of Firepower and/or Epic 40,000 magazine (not Black Library), bouncing of rules of Epic 40,000 (aka 3rd edition epic). It was a mess, even the writer didn't what it should do. In one issue it was declared it was compatible with the current Epic rules, then it wasn't. The points values were on one scale, then another. Then they dumped all that was written so far at went with a dice allocation mechanic. Bit of a mess really.

 Sherrypie wrote:
That's great to hear, never hurts to have flexibility in the game. Judging by the White Dwarf report, the game play itself seems tasty, my BFG side is tingling with joy to have the smaller nimbler knights run rings around cumbersome titans like that.

Yeah, BFG definitely had some influence on the rules!

 Sherrypie wrote:
James, can you tell us anything about the distribution of weapon profiles in the game or do we have to wait until the release? I'm very curious as to how different roles and shapes are spread around the bodies, like what type of weapons use the flame template, can knight guns do anything but plink away at some void shields, how much synergy you built into combinations of shield-strippers and hull killers and so forth?

(And most importantly, will the ursus claw be awesome? 'Cause it's awesome.)

I ain't saying nothing! (Except that yeah, synergy is something that was very carefully considered, tested and worked on...)

 lagoon83 wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
That's great to hear, never hurts to have flexibility in the game. Judging by the White Dwarf report, the game play itself seems tasty, my BFG side is tingling with joy to have the smaller nimbler knights run rings around cumbersome titans like that.

Yeah, BFG definitely had some influence on the rules!

Can you elaborate on this, as far as general design goes? The fire arcs, turning angles, different armour values and such bear a similar shape but it would be interesting to hear how analyzing that rule set lead to some decisions made here.

 lagoon83 wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
James, can you tell us anything about the distribution of weapon profiles in the game or do we have to wait until the release? I'm very curious as to how different roles and shapes are spread around the bodies, like what type of weapons use the flame template, can knight guns do anything but plink away at some void shields, how much synergy you built into combinations of shield-strippers and hull killers and so forth?

(And most importantly, will the ursus claw be awesome? 'Cause it's awesome.)

I ain't saying nothing! (Except that yeah, synergy is something that was very carefully considered, tested and worked on...)

C'mon man, vaguebook us a little

It's just a few weeks to the release anyway...

 lagoon83 wrote:
So when the game was being designed, the plan was for resin titans, which would be kinda pricey, so a lot of time went into making sure people could play a game with whatever Titans they wanted (up to a maniple). After all, it would suck if people got really excited, spend a load of time and money on a Reaver and four Warhounds only to discover that you *suck* if you don't take at least one Warlord. The game was tested at various levels - at one point, 5 Warhounds vs 5 Warlords was tested. The warhounds lost, naturally, but they gave a good account of themselves.

As a soon-to-be Legio Audax player, you just made my day with that comment.

FIRE THE URSUS CLAWS!


Now I just have to wait until...November?...for my models.

 Sherrypie wrote:
Can you elaborate on this, as far as general design goes? The fire arcs, turning angles, different armour values and such bear a similar shape but it would be interesting to hear how analyzing that rule set lead to some decisions made here.

Mechanically, it was mostly how orders work - in earlier builds of the rules the order system was very heavily influenced by AT first edition, but I swapped in a system very similar to how Gothic worked and sure enough it felt a lot better. But there were loads of other little bits and bobs, too. Always been a fan of BFG.

 Sherrypie wrote:
C'mon man, vaguebook us a little

It's just a few weeks to the release anyway...

Every weapon has its place, and positioning and manoeuvring are vital to using them well. Anyone who ignores Knights is a fool. There you go

gorgon wrote:As a soon-to-be Legio Audax player, you just made my day with that comment.

There were several Audax fans in the office too

Are there objectives or whatever in the game so it's more than just trying to kill the other guy first?