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 have to say, the price isn't a huge deterrent to me. Yeah, $290 is a lot of money (more so after Kill Team and AoS2), but I don't think it is a particularly unfair price for what you get. It's just a huge upfront investment before you've played the game, and the lack of a cheaper starting experience is frustrating (to play with my wife and kids, I'd need to supply two armies). But if I played the game and enjoyed it, I wouldn't consider the $290 to be a terrible deal. In fact, I'll bet the 2019 reprint does considerably better, given some distance from AoS2/KT and some more kits released for it.

I'm not getting it, mainly because I got both AoS2 and KT and springing a $290 box without warning won't give me enough time to save up before the initial print is likely sold out. I like the big robots, the gameplay looks interesting (I'm all for doing more with fewer miniatures), I like the scale, and I like the terrain. I'm not scared off by the price, but my pockets are only so deep and GW just cleaned them out (twice).

It seems like more of an upfront to absorb some of the production costs that would usually be absorbed by people building large armies of models. I'm not seeing games with 100s of Titans (or even knights) a side, unless it's an event game involving a store or club.

 Sherrypie wrote:
Since when has there not been movement? The latest White Dwarf has knights running around a Reaver to take it down by taking advantage of their greater mobility, we know that your guns gain more Strength when you fire at the side or rear of your target and so forth.

The bigger the models on a gaming board = less room to move.

And once more, this has nothing to do with Epic. It is not that they don't understand what made it great in its own right, it is that they wanted to make a different game. This isn't Epic. It was never meant to be Epic. It may someday expand towards Epic, but it is about titans and GW has been crystal clear on that matter from the very beginning.

This would have been the gate-way TO Epic. If this fails, any expansion on AT doesn't happen. How could it. Well, AT failed so should we invest on expanding it? Uhh... no.

You already had disappointment from a lot of people hoping for a return to glory years, and now others about the prices. Yes I know in the mix there are those that do not care about expanding the game to include infantry and tanks, and those who love the idea of managing a few models versus those managing strategy in a larger game, however, that thinking is far limited in scope than in developing something that can be expanded on.

It amazes me people don't see that. Who wants to shell out $300 for a game with a limited model run and tactics?!? Far fewer than those who want to shell out less for a game with far more options. Which is my point.

 KTG17 wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Since when has there not been movement? The latest White Dwarf has knights running around a Reaver to take it down by taking advantage of their greater mobility, we know that your guns gain more Strength when you fire at the side or rear of your target and so forth.

The bigger the models on a gaming board = less room to move.

Technically, yes. However, given that there will only be from two to maybe twenty models (in a large game that benefits from a larger field) in total on the field, that isn't going to be a problem as long as the players use enough terrain to create interesting variety and choices on the table. Most missions suggest 4' x 4' tables. There's nothing that prevents you from using larger tables, like a 6' x 4' standard table or whatever you have. That is plenty of space to move and maneuver with a few not-really-Knight-sized Warlords and a bunch of fist sized lesser machines on the table, as much of that maneuvering comes from restricted turning capabilities. In BFG for an example, one of my long time favourite games, much of the decision making comes from trying to anticipate how you need to move in order to reach your proper destination in two or three turns while firing away. This game should be similar, considering how Hewitt has cited BFG as a prominent source of inspiration.

 KTG17 wrote:

And once more, this has nothing to do with Epic. It is not that they don't understand what made it great in its own right, it is that they wanted to make a different game. This isn't Epic. It was never meant to be Epic. It may someday expand towards Epic, but it is about titans and GW has been crystal clear on that matter from the very beginning.

This would have been the gate-way TO Epic. If this fails, any expansion on AT doesn't happen. How could it. Well, AT failed so should we invest on expanding it? Uhh... no.

You already had disappointment from a lot of people hoping for a return to glory years, and now others about the prices. Yes I know in the mix there are those that do not care about expanding the game to include infantry and tanks, and those who love the idea of managing a few models versus those managing strategy in a larger game, however, that thinking is far limited in scope than in developing something that can be expanded on.

It amazes me people don't see that. Who wants to shell out $300 for a game with a limited model run and tactics?!? Far fewer than those who want to shell out less for a game with far more options. Which is my point.

Well, I would say it is pretty hasty to say too much about the lack of tactics, really. Or about models: within a few months we'll have the main titans and a bunch of weapons, that should give a wide range of options considering that means we have harassers, light titans, line titans and heavy titans, each of which can be armed for a variety of purposes. They may very well allow for quite a varied bunch of approaches to the battles.

I'm more amazed by the insistence that this will necessarly fail now that it has a price (which is in line with the expectations here in Europe, I feel for you dollarfolks) or because it still isn't Epic. Sure Epic is awesome and stuff, but since the designers never said this would be Epic, I'm willing to stay hyped for the titan clash that it has always purported to be.

What concerns me is that any game, specialist or not, needs a price tag which attracts new buyers. That's why "starter boxes" exist. They're almost all universally good values - if not amazing, at least good. They're the opening salvo. You get the starter kit and then you want the nice toys. A game of AT (if rumours are to be believed) requires a nearly similar investment in plastic as 40K, which is a bit crazy.

I am suspicious if the Reaver and Warhound are intentionally being delayed to maybe cover a lack of initial sales? When I see AT and the prices (not just the GM box) I don't see anything that says "yeah, rush out and buy several $110 models!", etc. I can easily see GW releasing a "proper" starter box down the road with a Reaver, two Warhounds, and a couple knights, etc for a more sane price.

As it stands now the initial buy in, regardless of how you do it is $300+ unless you planned on simply running a couple Knight formations against each other. Consider how much something like Dark Imperium got you for nearly half that cost. You can actually play games of 40K with that starter set. GW really needs a better/discounted starter set, particularly for a dead item which has some nostalgic fans but will have to win over new customers. Imagine the average 40K customer who's never head of AT and he walks in and sees a Grand Master box and grabs it thinking "oh cool, a new game!". Then he sees a $290 pricetag. Dead on arrival.

So he drops that box and looks at the rulebook. Oof, $60...okay...well how much is one of these Warlords...$110...ouch. There's nothing about this product which is a suitable way to start without a serious investment (if we're considering this from the consumer range they're aiming at - high schoolers and college/recent college kids). Is $290 some impossible price for a working adult? No. But it's way too much for a larger share of their consumer market.

 KTG17 wrote:


This would have been the gate-way TO Epic. If this fails, any expansion on AT doesn't happen. How could it. Well, AT failed so should we invest on expanding it? Uhh... no.

An expansion on AT will be more AT. It will not be Epic. If Epic happens somewhere down the line, it will be in the form of a separate rules set that just so happens to be using AT miniatures to supplement a whole new range of 8mm infantry and vehicle kits.

I see no reason to think the post Kirby GW is dumb enough to judge the viability of a game based on the performance of a completely different range of miniatures and rules.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 KTG17 wrote:


This would have been the gate-way TO Epic. If this fails, any expansion on AT doesn't happen. How could it. Well, AT failed so should we invest on expanding it? Uhh... no.

An expansion on AT will be more AT. It will not be Epic. If Epic happens somewhere down the line, it will be in the form of a separate rules set that just so happens to be using AT miniatures to supplement a whole new range of 8mm infantry and vehicle kits.

I see no reason to think the post Kirby GW is dumb enough to judge the viability of a game based on the performance of a completely different range of miniatures and rules.

I think that's a tad disingenuous. AT isn't a completely different range of miniatures and rules. If I'm not mistaken, I saw many Warlords, Reavers, and Knights back in the day. How much will the rules differ? IDK. But personally I feel completely comfortable putting this game in the Epic category, at least in spirit.

changemod wrote:
Most people play at stores or clubs and don’t have to worry much about that.

I would be curious to see what you're basing that assumption on.

Besides, if you don't need the terrain, there would be little point in buying the GM edition - at that point, better to buy the rules and cherry pick the models you want.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Macrossmartin wrote:
Can I just say that... in one page of posts, the Dakka community has restored my belief that it is possible for wargamers to conduct themselves intelligently and thoughtfully in debate and discussion.

Sorry about that.

There is already a lot of micro management going on if you are fielding multiple titans. If you add in marines, tanks, whatever it will just slow the game down and make it longer and clunky to play. They would have to simplify the hell out of any significant epic additions to this game to avoid rules bloat.

I do wish they released little marines though just to put on the bases or building decks, just for decoration and to give a sense of scale to the game.

I think the AT computer game coming out does that, with little groups of Marines having tiny firefights and whatnot as flavour animation.

Well, I feel this will be a bit of a repeat of something like Dreadfleet. I am sure every fan of Man O' War was stunned they might be getting an updated version of that game, and were disappointed when the 'designers never said this would be' another Man O' War, or even close. Dreadfleet was limited in scope and is collecting dust on shelves. I am not interested in one-off games, and lord knows I have enough of that from a bunch of other companies. I am more invested into buying into a system that will grow. Telling me right out of the gate that this isn't the intent is a great way for me to keep my money in my wallet.

If it was the designers intent with Dreadfleet then great, they got exactly what they wanted. Unfortunately for just about everyone who bought the game, its dormant and no one is interested in playing it. I am sure there are some hardcore fanatics of Dreadfleet who think its the best game ever and is everything they wanted, and agree that the idea of incorporating more minis is foolish, but they seem to be few in number. Projecting limited support for a game is a sure way of killing interest in it.

Guess we'll just have to note the date and time and check back in a year and see who else is still playing it after the novelty wears off.

It is a big asking price, especially so soon after the launch of Kill Team. The new scale will have no doubt pushed the price up, which may be why a lot of people are a bit shocked at seeing it.

Still, I think it is risky releasing this so close to Kill Team. Guess we'll see how it pans out.

 Thargrim wrote:
There is already a lot of micro management going on if you are fielding multiple titans. If you add in marines, tanks, whatever it will just slow the game down and make it longer and clunky to play. They would have to simplify the hell out of any significant epic additions to this game to avoid rules bloat.

Exactly, which is why I am doubtful this will expand enough to inspire people to really invest in it. I wouldn't mind some detail to manage titans, but where the heck are you going to put all those cards when playing a decent sized game? I mentioned Man O' War above, but that game used a template per ship (even a much smaller one), and having all the templates for your fleet out on the table took up a lot of space, and those minis were small.

I guess I am just jaded. I miss the days of strategy with sweeping flanks and long distance ranges. Now everything is getting bigger and the tables space remains the same, bunching everything up. Its really starting to feel claustrophobic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 stonehorse wrote:
It is a big asking price, especially so soon after the launch of Kill Team. The new scale will have no doubt pushed the price up, which may be why a lot of people are a bit shocked at seeing it.

Still, I think it is risky releasing this so close to Kill Team. Guess we'll see how it pans out.

I wonder if this hurts GW in the long run, then hurts us. We all wanted to see more variety from them years back, but now its almost like whoa, I can't keep up. Necromunda, Kill Team, Adeptus, back to back. Not only is it expensive to keep up, but everyone is going to be investing in and playing different games lol.

I like what they have done with Necromunda. I hope that models follows with Adeptus. But Necromunda and Kill Team all use the same terrain and in some cases models. Its easy for them to recycle parts. Adeptus is a whole other animal.

beast_gts wrote:
Next Article is up!

I'm assuming that lovely bit of art with the Reaver facing a Imperator is the Titandeath cover. Anyone recognise the Imperator's legio colours?

Adding infantry breaks the scale of the game. I cannot honestly eee how anyone who has read hiwvrhe game plays can claim there are no tactics.

Fire lanes. Orders. Reactor. For starters. That's before reavers and warhounds are added in.

 TwilightSparkles wrote:
Adding infantry breaks the scale of the game. I cannot honestly eee how anyone who has read hiwvrhe game plays can claim there are no tactics.

Fire lanes. Orders. Reactor. For starters. That's before reavers and warhounds are added in.

AT looks to be one of the more strategical games GW has put out lately, how anyone can find AT seem to lack strategy is beyond me.
Perhaps people are basing their opinions on the battle report WarhammerTV did, it wasnt a very interesting game since it ended up with them just running straight at each other but the intention of that game was only to show off the system.

Im very excited about AT, after being rather disappointed with most of what GW has released the past year im excited to see something different enough to justify calling it a "new" game. The price is a problem, it makes my heart and wallet cry blood but I just dont see how I could resist. The game seems brilliant and if I can build up a decent 2-player set im happy with that, support and expansions would be nice but im not all too worried if it doesnt get there.

Love it or hate it, the price is the price. It's not something I can affect, so I'm not putting any mental energy there.

As for the box potentially pricing out new players - that's a valid concern, though the rules package and individual titans is another way of approaching that.

My opinion is that the Grand Master box is designed for grognards who fondly remember previous editions of the game and folks who really want titan on titan action.

Fence sitters will wait to see how it's supported and then buy in if they like what they see (or have a community that plays).

However, I suspect that GW will at least give this a "Necromunda" or "Blood Bowl" level of support.

..and lastly, for those too lazy to watch the designer video, here are the pertinent points:

* Original game was all about Titans, and that's what this is
* You are a Princeps leading your titan maniple
* * *Giving orders to the other titans of your group
* 80s game design origins, so this reflects that level of crunch
* Turn Sequence is from original AT
* Order system is from BFG
* Combat resolution draws on 40K
* Game is designed for 3 to 5 titans (7 maximum)
* Commend Terminals track everything
* * * Gives you things to do when not your turn as well
* They might do other (bigger) titans in the future
* Plasma is key resource in game
* * * Assign it to systems
* * * Stress reactor for more of it - but this is dangerous
* * * Reactor venting and damage become increasingly important as the game progresses

Soulless wrote:

 TwilightSparkles wrote:
Adding infantry breaks the scale of the game. I cannot honestly eee how anyone who has read hiwvrhe game plays can claim there are no tactics.

Fire lanes. Orders. Reactor. For starters. That's before reavers and warhounds are added in.

AT looks to be one of the more strategical games GW has put out lately, how anyone can find AT seem to lack strategy is beyond me.
Perhaps people are basing their opinions on the battle report WarhammerTV did, it wasnt a very interesting game since it ended up with them just running straight at each other but the intention of that game was only to show off the system.

Im very excited about AT, after being rather disappointed with most of what GW has released the past year im excited to see something different enough to justify calling it a "new" game. The price is a problem, it makes my heart and wallet cry blood but I just dont see how I could resist. The game seems brilliant and if I can build up a decent 2-player set im happy with that, support and expansions would be nice but im not all too worried if it doesnt get there.

I've watched a few youtube batreps, and they always seem really, really boring. One guy sets up his whole army clumped on one side of the board, the other guy sets up in the same manner on the other side of the board, and then the fun begins...(from what I've seen). Micro-managing warlords and flanking with warhounds seems far more interesting to me.

/Edit - I'm talking of 40k YT games here.

 Sqorgar wrote:
I have to say, the price isn't a huge deterrent to me. Yeah, $290 is a lot of money (more so after Kill Team and AoS2), but I don't think it is a particularly unfair price for what you get. It's just a huge upfront investment before you've played the game, and the lack of a cheaper starting experience is frustrating (to play with my wife and kids, I'd need to supply two armies). But if I played the game and enjoyed it, I wouldn't consider the $290 to be a terrible deal. In fact, I'll bet the 2019 reprint does considerably better, given some distance from AoS2/KT and some more kits released for it.

I'm not getting it, mainly because I got both AoS2 and KT and springing a $290 box without warning won't give me enough time to save up before the initial print is likely sold out. I like the big robots, the gameplay looks interesting (I'm all for doing more with fewer miniatures), I like the scale, and I like the terrain. I'm not scared off by the price, but my pockets are only so deep and GW just cleaned them out (twice).

Problem is I think GW is testing the water for yet another massive price hike for 2019, I feel this is just setting the stage. Kinda like when gas prices spike and then taper off a little. People get outraged at the sticker shock. I think if this tactic succeeds and we let it do so... expect new games/ boxed sets and that to follow suit.

Hopefully GW will not get the support they hope for with this.

angel of death 007 wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
I have to say, the price isn't a huge deterrent to me. Yeah, $290 is a lot of money (more so after Kill Team and AoS2), but I don't think it is a particularly unfair price for what you get. It's just a huge upfront investment before you've played the game, and the lack of a cheaper starting experience is frustrating (to play with my wife and kids, I'd need to supply two armies). But if I played the game and enjoyed it, I wouldn't consider the $290 to be a terrible deal. In fact, I'll bet the 2019 reprint does considerably better, given some distance from AoS2/KT and some more kits released for it.

I'm not getting it, mainly because I got both AoS2 and KT and springing a $290 box without warning won't give me enough time to save up before the initial print is likely sold out. I like the big robots, the gameplay looks interesting (I'm all for doing more with fewer miniatures), I like the scale, and I like the terrain. I'm not scared off by the price, but my pockets are only so deep and GW just cleaned them out (twice).

Problem is I think GW is testing the water for yet another massive price hike for 2019, I feel this is just setting the stage. Kinda like when gas prices spike and then taper off a little. People get outraged at the sticker shock. I think if this tactic succeeds and we let it do so... expect new games/ boxed sets and that to follow suit.

Hopefully GW will not get the support they hope for with this.

Meh, this is looking to hard. GW is making money hand over fist with their current model. I doubt we see a major price hike. Every once in a while there is a pricing misstep ala chainrasps but they've been pretty consistent in the grand scheme. I think this is just a confluence of a specialist game and lower estimated sales totals coming to the fore. I'm not happy with the price but mostly because it's unlikely to sweep the local area at that cost. I'll still grab the individual models here and there as they are worth the price if you've been on the epic black market for any length of time they're a steal.

angel of death 007 wrote:
Problem is I think GW is testing the water for yet another massive price hike for 2019, I feel this is just setting the stage. Kinda like when gas prices spike and then taper off a little. People get outraged at the sticker shock. I think if this tactic succeeds and we let it do so... expect new games/ boxed sets and that to follow suit.

Hopefully GW will not get the support they hope for with this.

I don't see it. If they were going to do that, they'd do it during an edition change, not make a really super expensive niche product with a limited audience made up of people where "old school crunchy" is a selling point. AT is expensive because it was designed to be expensive. It's built around $100 models. It's never going to be mass market.

The limited, aha, scale of the game will also factor into prices.

With them describing it as 7 Titans absolute max, that’s a decent price ceiling for them to deal with, especially if we make (the not entirely safe assumption) that doesn’t mean 7 Warlords, but a mix of classes.

Yeah, like I said, a full Axiom Battleline Maniple (1 WL, 2 R, 2 WH) looks to clock in near 1700 points, which is at the high end of the mid-level game size.

I'll probably be at that maximum or near it just because I'm running all Warhounds.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The limited, aha, scale of the game will also factor into prices.

With them describing it as 7 Titans absolute max, that’s a decent price ceiling for them to deal with, especially if we make (the not entirely safe assumption) that doesn’t mean 7 Warlords, but a mix of classes.

Didnt they say that you'd only ever need 1 warlord?

 gorgon wrote:
Yeah, like I said, a full Axiom Battleline Maniple (1 WL, 2 R, 2 WH) looks to clock in near 1700 points, which is at the high end of the mid-level game size.

I'll probably be at that maximum or near it just because I'm running all Warhounds.

I just wish they'd give us the damn prices already. I know it's not their usual thing, releasing prices months in advance, but I'd much prefer the (1 WL, 2 R, 2 WH) than 2W, 6K, some books and some terrain. But which works out to be less ridiculously (to many people) expensive?

Just make sure you keep them on the leash, and off Frazz’s lawn :p

I mean it’s cold comfort at best to those in Australia and New Zealand, but means we won’t be spending hundreds upon hundreds unless we want to!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Neronoxx wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The limited, aha, scale of the game will also factor into prices.

With them describing it as 7 Titans absolute max, that’s a decent price ceiling for them to deal with, especially if we make (the not entirely safe assumption) that doesn’t mean 7 Warlords, but a mix of classes.

Didnt they say that you'd only ever need 1 warlord?

Need and want different things :p

It's safe to say the fan reaction to the price has been almost universally negative, and it wouldn't surprise me if GW actually knock the price down very slightly when pre-orders go up on Saturday. Did they not do something similar with Shadow War Armageddon?

richstrach wrote:
It's safe to say the fan reaction to the price has been almost universally negative, and it wouldn't surprise me if GW actually knock the price down very slightly when pre-orders go up on Saturday. Did they not do something similar with Shadow War Armageddon?

It would be nice if they heard the feedback and considered it, but that seems like a dream...not like something GW would do or has ever been known to do.

I don't know what they were thinking here. Originally this was going to be resin, but they switched to plastic to cut down cost. What would this have cost in resin then? How do you open up a new game system at this price and expect it to succeed?

good luck....i will probably just wait for the video game.

Not to divert from the conversation about prices*, but I'm more worried about a game play issue:

How are we supposed to be using these cardstock terminals? I know you have weapons cards for the weapons on each Titan, but how do they attach to the terminal? Do we just lay them on top? Aren't they going to slip off when you pick it up?

And the 'pegs' used to track damage, shield strength, and plasma. What's keeping them in the holes in a cardstock terminal? Are they going to wear larger holes in the terminal and pop out?

I'm entirely on the fence about the price of this game, but I'm NOT looking forwards to dropping substantial cash on the game only to discover that I have to use blu-tac on my stuff.

*And, on the topic of pricing, it really seems like the Grand Master edition is what is giving people fits. The Rule Set comes with the rulebook, ruler, dice, templates, Terminals, weapons cards, the 'other' cards, transfers, and evidently, Objectives (from the WD), for $60. That seems like a great deal. The 40K rulebook is $60 by itself. I know this one is smaller, but you get all that other stuff. Then just buy the individual Titans/Knights you want and grow your army the way you grow a 40K army. People don't always buy a 2000 point army in one go, so why are people feeling they HAVE to on this one?

I do agree that a box with, say, the Rules Set content, and one Warlord, for perhaps $100-125 might have been a better way to entice people into the game, and provided a more appealing entry point, especially since it would have given you kind of 'two options' for a 'starting force' (the Grand Master, and some other edition). But I don't see a particularly bad value on the Rule Set, and then you can buy Titans, and scenery, as you wish.

I am very unhappy that the scenery is SO unlike the Sector Mechanicus and Sector Imperialis stuff. I don't think it looks bad, but why do Titans fight in pristine areas, and everybody else in bombed out ruins? I would have liked to see scenery that looked like smaller versions of the stuff we use in 40K and Kill Team (less modular, of course).