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.

 aka_mythos wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Da Butcha wrote:

*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?

Given that the GM set just compiles all of the stuff that people that people would need to buy anyway with a nominal discount, the point isn't that the GM set specifically is too expensive, it's that it illustrates the total cost of buying into the game. And that's too high for some of us.

And to add to that, they've said the intention is that a standard game is 3 warlords per side... meaning while you can play with the box contents, it still doesn't represent the full extent of how they intend you to play.

I imagine their intent is for us to play with a mixed force of titans, of which 3 warlords is possiable but more likely reivers and warhounds. they're giving us data cards for all those too even though the models won't be out immediatly, my gut feeling is they're expecting your average player to start with a warlord, and maybe some knights, and then slowly expand from there.(which is how people build a force for any GW game really)

My gut says a "3 warlord army" will be doable at "high standard points levels" but not likely the optimal army.

Neronoxx wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Da Butcha wrote:

*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?

Given that the GM set just compiles all of the stuff that people that people would need to buy anyway with a nominal discount, the point isn't that the GM set specifically is too expensive, it's that it illustrates the total cost of buying into the game. And that's too high for some of us.

And to add to that, they've said the intention is that a standard game is 3 warlords per side... meaning while you can play with the box contents, it still doesn't represent the full extent of how they intend you to play.

Can you cite that?

In the White Dwarf batrep, James Hewitt says it's designed for 3-5 titans per side, so that could be a warlord and two Reavers, say, or a warlord, a reaver and two warhounds.

Yeah, 3 warlords sounds like a bit much.

richstrach wrote:

Neronoxx wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Da Butcha wrote:

*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?

Given that the GM set just compiles all of the stuff that people that people would need to buy anyway with a nominal discount, the point isn't that the GM set specifically is too expensive, it's that it illustrates the total cost of buying into the game. And that's too high for some of us.

And to add to that, they've said the intention is that a standard game is 3 warlords per side... meaning while you can play with the box contents, it still doesn't represent the full extent of how they intend you to play.

Can you cite that?

In the White Dwarf batrep, James Hewitt says it's designed for 3-5 titans per side, so that could be a warlord and two Reavers, say, or a warlord, a reaver and two warhounds.

yeah that's my guess too. 3 warlords might at the high end of standard point levels be doable but I have a hunch that unless you're playing on planet bowling ball and have absolutely no terrain (and even then fire arcs are apparently a thing) that might be unwise as you'll surrender your flanks to the more numerous skirmishers.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Justyn wrote:

"do I wanna fire all my guns and risk 'over heating' etc"

Lol.

Laugh all you like but I'm assuming it'll operate a little like Battletech and similer games with a "power system" and I've seen games won and lost due to people taking gambles with that.

Mr Morden wrote:Waiiting to see the games where the real 40k Whales are playing this with Forgeworld Titans

That would be dope!

 aka_mythos wrote:


And to add to that, they've said the intention is that a standard game is 3 warlords per side... meaning while you can play with the box contents, it still doesn't represent the full extent of how they intend you to play.

Just need to buy 3 GME boxsets and you can accommodate standard games


Kidding aside, I did a quick look at a basic 2-players bundle: 1 GME box + 1 Rule Sets box. Per player, this gives 1 warlord, 3 knights, 2 large and 2 small sprues of Civitas Imperialis (equivalent to 1 small box or 1/4 of the sector box), and rules, templates and accessories.

Costs per player would be £105, US$ 175, €137,50, AU$294 and NZ$348,6. Savings from buying all elements separate are between 23.5% and 26%.

How's that stack up vs buying the warlord titan knights and rulebook seperately, assuming one didn't care about terrain?

Laugh all you like but I'm assuming it'll operate a little like Battletech and similer games with a "power system" and I've seen games won and lost due to people taking gambles with that.

I laugh because the original AT was an attempt to cash in on the popularity of Battletech. Now they steal game mechanics directly from it. Its funny.

1 Warlord + 1 set of Knights + 1 Rule Set gives £120, US$205, €155, AU$336, and NZ$398,4

In CA$ that would be 240

I updated the table in my previous post

Where do you get 37.50 for the civitas imperialis ? It's £25 fir the small box, £75 the sector. Sector is 4 lots of the £25 box content. There is still a saving but it's lower.

One of the key things is that the nature of the box means it's likely that this weekend may be the only time to buy from a non GW store at a higher discount and free shipping as they are all competing for a ton of orders.a lot of UK stores are going to be 25-20% this weekend but afterwards it'll be 15-10% discount.

FWIW GW have told stores they should not be taking or offering preorders until it goes live on Saturday as normal. Break it and you risk getting nothing especially when this seems to be a product that stores playing by the rules are saying they've been told they cannot get the free sale numbers they would like.

 TwilightSparkles wrote:
Where do you get 37.50 for the civitas imperialis ? It's £25 fir the small box, £75 the sector. Sector is 4 lots of the £25 box content. There is still a saving but it's lower.

One of the key things is that the nature of the box means it's likely that this weekend may be the only time to buy from a non GW store at a higher discount and free shipping as they are all competing for a ton of orders.a lot of UK stores are going to be 25-20% this weekend but afterwards it'll be 15-10% discount.

FWIW GW have told stores they should not be taking or offering preorders until it goes live on Saturday as normal. Break it and you risk getting nothing especially when this seems to be a product that stores playing by the rules are saying they've been told they cannot get the free sale numbers they would like.

I get £37.5 by taking 50% of the civitas imperialis sector at £75. According to the terrain sprue count in the GME there are 4 large and 4 small sprues, while in civitas imperialis there are 2 of each and the civitas imperialis sector is said to be 8 of each (kind of worst case scenario)


Absolutely, I tried to get more info from 2 independent stores where I buy and they were adamant not saying anything, so they are definitely contractually bound to secrecy until Saturday 10am

Racerguy180 wrote:

Mr Morden wrote:Waiiting to see the games where the real 40k Whales are playing this with Forgeworld Titans

That would be dope!

That's actually how they first announced AT 18 months ago. The ruleset was finished but the new models were being worked on, so they let attendees at a GW event play a 28mm scale game using the studio titans.

edit: added link

 KTG17 wrote:
AT/SM1 are what got me into table top gaming. Loved that time period. Found this on YouTube:

https://youtu.be/sd-8suzxJ0o

These guys are playing on a narrow board with the older Titans, but considering the new ones are gigantic, this might as well be how the new game plays. The game these guys played simply involved moving up your titans to point blank range in the middle of the board. No creative tactics in sight. But then again, there just isn’t any room for them either. These guys really should have turned the board sideways and and spread their few models out. This is what I mean about cramp spaces. I’ll need space for the new templates, my massive models, bigger buildings, and every game will be predictable. Oh yay I get to manage plasma and wrestle with the machine spirit. I could care less about that. To me it’s just another layer of unnecessary depth to make me feel like I am getting more out of my model because they cost so much and are too big to have too many of, and a for a game limited in scope. So awesome.

Okay, now you're just being disingenious. Ash, the man behind Guerrilla Miniature Games, is well known for being quite fast and loose with the games he plays and making "dumb" game decisions to either just have fun or keep the action going for viewers. If they play on a small table to quickly show off the mechanics of the game for audience who might not have been around in the old days, that does bias the end result towards a crash collision without it being the game's fault. Once again, there is nothing that necessitates you couldn't just as easily play on a larger table in your own games. You only get predictable games if you don't put effort in them on your own part.

And if micromanaging isn't you cup of tea, that's cool, but it is a part of this game and that has been clear from the start. It is an interesting design avenue GW hasn't really touched in years. I would expect something like that to be a compelling part of the game when it has only a few models, so yeah, it's possibly awesome. We'll see.

 KTG17 wrote:
And I can’t for the life of me understand how anyone can think not having some infantry and tanks running around wouldn’t have added an amazing dynamic to the game.

I do have all of my previous Epid stuff. I will give the new system a go with all of my old models and see how that plays out. I own 15 of the old plastic beetle Warlords shown in the video alone. Then another 4 Reavers and 4 Warhounds.

So screw these new models.

Because that isn't what anyone is really saying? The point is that having the entire scale of things from infantry to god-engines in the same rules system requires compromising either one of those and the intent here was to go all in in the thematic part of fighting with the titans. Just like many historical games usually focus on infantry alone and maybe throw some artillery or mortar support in from off field, here the spotlight is all for the titans, Would it have been cool if this was Epic? Sure, I too like large flanking sweeps and entire armies slowly grinding each other to dust, Am I okay with this game being a different game, because it never said it's going to be Epic? Yes, because I like it for what it seems to be on its own merits.

The point is not that infantry and tanks wouldn't add stuff, it is that the game without them can already be cool and actually lauch at some point instead of spending yet more years in the development limbo as Specialist Games studio struggles to get more space and production time. They don't really have too many hands to work on the project, given that it took two years for one man to create what we have here (modelwise).

I think something people are overlooking in the price discussion is that this is not a normal starter set, in the sense that it's not a collection of easy-to-build models specifically created for a huge box set expected to sell tons of copies. This is a bundle of separate products, and should be compared to other bundles such as the Battleforces, which generally have a savings of around 30% compared to buying the products separately. That's the pricing logic that GW has used here. Consider the Dark Imperium and Soul Wars box sets: how much do you save compared to buying the multi-part versions of the units inside? A lot more than 30%, that's for sure. Probably double that. So that's what people expected for Titanicus. But that's not what Titanicus is, it's just a bundle, and so instead of having the same discounts as Dark Imperium or Soul Wars, it costs the same as those boxes would have if they had full sprues of multi-part kits instead of the easy-to-build variants they have now. Something to consider.

 Mymearan wrote:
I think something people are overlooking in the price discussion is that this is not a normal starter set, in the sense that it's not a collection of easy-to-build models specifically created for a huge box set expected to sell tons of copies. This is a bundle of separate products, and should be compared to other bundles such as the Battleforces, which generally have a savings of around 30% compared to buying the products separately. That's the pricing logic that GW has used here. Consider the Dark Imperium and Soul Wars box sets: how much do you save compared to buying the multi-part versions of the units inside? A lot more than 30%, that's for sure. Probably double that. So that's what people expected for Titanicus. But that's not what Titanicus is, it's just a bundle, and so instead of having the same discounts as Dark Imperium or Soul Wars, it costs the same as those boxes would have if they had full sprues of multi-part kits instead of the easy-to-build variants they have now. Something to consider.

Exactly. The best analogy to 40k would be if they took the Knight: Renegade box (with 2 big knights plus terrain) and threw in a full size 40k rulebook, dice, counters and a pair of Armiger models. That wouldn't be too far off the GME price either. However it's not really a 'starter' box when models are enough for one person to have a substantial army for an average game. In both cases you'd be pushing 1500pts with everything on one side.

Huh. Watched the Twitch demo game last night and there was such a hilarious "Oh, GW you muppets" moment.

One of the viewers asked these two guys (who discussed how they had been playtesting the game) in the chat... "Can you field an army of just knight banners?"

The players response was something along the lines of "Well.. I guess so? It might be pretty bad. I've never seen it done. You might have to get used to losing a lot! HAHA!"

And then the very next turn a banner of 3 knights flanked a Warlord titan, attacked it from the rear and pretty much smashed it to pieces! They didn't deal the killing blow but they did most of the work.

I do feel like there might possibly (hopefully?) have been a rules error when doing the Knight combat - they seemed to be surprisingly deadly in combat. Void shields don't count and they can target the body for maximum damage.

They die like ants at range but your Warlord doesn't get that many shots, and once a Knight is within about 10" the Warlord literally can't turn fast enough or move fast enough to do anything apart from shoot them with its defensive guns.

Anyway... it may be that the actual designers HAVE thought about this and tested it and stuff... and the guys they had playing it were less experienced... but it was just amusing to see they had not even considered that people might say "screw warlords they cost too much, let's just take loads of little guys".

 Mymearan wrote:
I think something people are overlooking in the price discussion is that this is not a normal starter set, in the sense that it's not a collection of easy-to-build models specifically created for a huge box set expected to sell tons of copies. This is a bundle of separate products, and should be compared to other bundles such as the Battleforces, which generally have a savings of around 30% compared to buying the products separately. That's the pricing logic that GW has used here. Consider the Dark Imperium and Soul Wars box sets: how much do you save compared to buying the multi-part versions of the units inside? A lot more than 30%, that's for sure. Probably double that. So that's what people expected for Titanicus. But that's not what Titanicus is, it's just a bundle, and so instead of having the same discounts as Dark Imperium or Soul Wars, it costs the same as those boxes would have if they had full sprues of multi-part kits instead of the easy-to-build variants they have now. Something to consider.

another thing that occured to me that likely influences the price... GW proably knows this game is going to be niche as hell. Consider the number of "40k is too complex" complaints you see on places like this, even 8th edition some people say is getting overly complex. frankly anyone who thinks that should proably stay WAAAAAAAAAY away from AT. If this is an 80s style table top game, it's just gonna be too complex for a lot of people, but the people who like it I suspect GW is banking on being pretty dedicated

 Silentz wrote:
Huh. Watched the Twitch demo game last night and there was such a hilarious "Oh, GW you muppets" moment.

One of the viewers asked these two guys (who discussed how they had been playtesting the game) in the chat... "Can you field an army of just knight banners?"

The players response was something along the lines of "Well.. I guess so? It might be pretty bad. I've never seen it done. You might have to get used to losing a lot! HAHA!"

And then the very next turn a banner of 3 knights flanked a Warlord titan, attacked it from the rear and pretty much smashed it to pieces! They didn't deal the killing blow but they did most of the work.

I do feel like there might possibly (hopefully?) have been a rules error when doing the Knight combat - they seemed to be surprisingly deadly in combat. Void shields don't count and they can target the body for maximum damage.

They die like ants at range but your Warlord doesn't get that many shots, and once a Knight is within about 10" the Warlord literally can't turn fast enough or move fast enough to do anything apart from shoot them with its defensive guns.

Anyway... it may be that the actual designers HAVE thought about this and tested it and stuff... and the guys they had playing it were less experienced... but it was just amusing to see they had not even considered that people might say "screw warlords they cost too much, let's just take loads of little guys".

I'd say the thing to take away from that match is that the players were kind of dolts, really
Just using the multishot (10 or so?) apocalypse launchers instead of volcano cannons against the knights or wiping them off first while letting the other Warlord beat you a bit would've been more tactically sound, as the current forces didn't really allow for screening. In a normal game, I'd wager having a Reaver with a lot of small dakka would be quite good at killing too brave knights if they approach uncautiously.

I don't mind the knights being deadly in combat, as that is how they should operate. Insignificant gnats to be casually crushed, but not something to be ignored as they will saw your legs off if you let them engage. They allow for interesting maneuvers on the field and require the larger titans to ponder what hey're doing instead of sitting tight and blasting away. That is good for the game.

 Sherrypie wrote:

 Silentz wrote:
Huh. Watched the Twitch demo game last night and there was such a hilarious "Oh, GW you muppets" moment.

One of the viewers asked these two guys (who discussed how they had been playtesting the game) in the chat... "Can you field an army of just knight banners?"

The players response was something along the lines of "Well.. I guess so? It might be pretty bad. I've never seen it done. You might have to get used to losing a lot! HAHA!"

And then the very next turn a banner of 3 knights flanked a Warlord titan, attacked it from the rear and pretty much smashed it to pieces! They didn't deal the killing blow but they did most of the work.

I do feel like there might possibly (hopefully?) have been a rules error when doing the Knight combat - they seemed to be surprisingly deadly in combat. Void shields don't count and they can target the body for maximum damage.

They die like ants at range but your Warlord doesn't get that many shots, and once a Knight is within about 10" the Warlord literally can't turn fast enough or move fast enough to do anything apart from shoot them with its defensive guns.

Anyway... it may be that the actual designers HAVE thought about this and tested it and stuff... and the guys they had playing it were less experienced... but it was just amusing to see they had not even considered that people might say "screw warlords they cost too much, let's just take loads of little guys".

I'd say the thing to take away from that match is that the players were kind of dolts, really
Just using the multishot (10 or so?) apocalypse launchers instead of volcano cannons against the knights or wiping them off first while letting the other Warlord beat you a bit would've been more tactically sound, as the current forces didn't really allow for screening. In a normal game, I'd wager having a Reaver with a lot of small dakka would be quite good at killing too brave knights if they approach uncautiously.

I don't mind the knights being deadly in combat, as that is how they should operate. Insignificant gnats to be casually crushed, but not something to be ignored as they will saw your legs off if you let them engage. They allow for interesting maneuvers on the field and require the larger titans to ponder what hey're doing instead of sitting tight and blasting away. That is good for the game.

Agreed. Knights NEED to be a threat, ideally AT should be a bit rock paper scissors necessitating a balanced force

 Silentz wrote:
Huh. Watched the Twitch demo game last night and there was such a hilarious "Oh, GW you muppets" moment.

Is that this link? https://www.twitch.tv/videos/292244551

I've tried to watch that a few times and keep getting Error 5000 Content not available

 xttz wrote:

 Silentz wrote:
Huh. Watched the Twitch demo game last night and there was such a hilarious "Oh, GW you muppets" moment.

Is that this link? https://www.twitch.tv/videos/292244551

I've tried to watch that a few times and keep getting Error 5000 Content not available

VoD are for Subscribers only.

 Mymearan wrote:
I think something people are overlooking in the price discussion is that this is not a normal starter set, in the sense that it's not a collection of easy-to-build models specifically created for a huge box set expected to sell tons of copies. This is a bundle of separate products, and should be compared to other bundles such as the Battleforces, which generally have a savings of around 30% compared to buying the products separately.

How about Kill Team? It's also a bundle with a ruleset. So is the Renegade game.

 Albertorius wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
I think something people are overlooking in the price discussion is that this is not a normal starter set, in the sense that it's not a collection of easy-to-build models specifically created for a huge box set expected to sell tons of copies. This is a bundle of separate products, and should be compared to other bundles such as the Battleforces, which generally have a savings of around 30% compared to buying the products separately.

How about Kill Team? It's also a bundle with a ruleset. So is the Renegade game.

Renegade only comes with the free 12-page core rules plus some custom ones for Knight duels. You would need the £35 rulebook separately to play 40k proper.

 xttz wrote:

 Silentz wrote:
Huh. Watched the Twitch demo game last night and there was such a hilarious "Oh, GW you muppets" moment.

Is that this link? https://www.twitch.tv/videos/292244551

I've tried to watch that a few times and keep getting Error 5000 Content not available

If you have Amazon Prime you can subscribe for free, though.

 Silentz wrote:

And then the very next turn a banner of 3 knights flanked a Warlord titan, attacked it from the rear and pretty much smashed it to pieces! They didn't deal the killing blow but they did most of the work.

I do feel like there might possibly (hopefully?) have been a rules error when doing the Knight combat - they seemed to be surprisingly deadly in combat. Void shields don't count and they can target the body for maximum damage.

This sounds like good design to me.

Chopstick wrote:

 xttz wrote:

 Silentz wrote:
Huh. Watched the Twitch demo game last night and there was such a hilarious "Oh, GW you muppets" moment.

Is that this link? https://www.twitch.tv/videos/292244551

I've tried to watch that a few times and keep getting Error 5000 Content not available

VoD are for Subscribers only.

Sure would be neat if it gave me that message instead of just failing to load over and over.

Edit: And it expects PAYMENT to view their archived videos, that’s hilarious.

changemod wrote:


Sure would be neat if it gave me that message instead of just failing to load over and over.

Edit: And it expects PAYMENT to view their archived videos, that’s hilarious.

Yeah the Twitch error message is very poor. Even after you subscribe it takes a while to come online. And I wouldn't pay for it either but as a free benefit of Prime it's pretty good.

changemod wrote:

Sure would be neat if it gave me that message instead of just failing to load over and over.

Edit: And it expects PAYMENT to view their archived videos, that’s hilarious.

They follow the business model used by Geek and Sundry, which is the largest tabletop channel on Twitch, 3rd place on Twitch Subscribers count behind Shroud and Ninja. Which is insane considered their viewer and total view are extremely low compared to the other top streamers

 xttz wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
I think something people are overlooking in the price discussion is that this is not a normal starter set, in the sense that it's not a collection of easy-to-build models specifically created for a huge box set expected to sell tons of copies. This is a bundle of separate products, and should be compared to other bundles such as the Battleforces, which generally have a savings of around 30% compared to buying the products separately.

How about Kill Team? It's also a bundle with a ruleset. So is the Renegade game.

Renegade only comes with the free 12-page core rules plus some custom ones for Knight duels. You would need the £35 rulebook separately to play 40k proper.

Out of three 40k and AoS starters, only one comes with the full rules to play the "game proper". And if you're comparing with other bundles of spearate products, the only ones that come to mind are KT and SWA, I think, and the Horus Heresy games that come bundled with an actual game but have no 30k/40k rules (the rules for Necromunda and Blood Bowl aren't being sold separately at the moment, I think?).

Yeah as this gets closer it’s a tricky decision to go or not go for the set. If I want two warlords, then the set amounts to the models plus a £5 ruleset, but if I go for one warlord the ruleset costs £30 more than it would in the set.

As far as I can tell, the only things the grandmaster set has besides the models, rule box and terrain (which I have no use for) is some quick reference sheets and a sample chapter, right?

Taking the terrain out of the picture the discount is unimpressive, but it would be an extra £30 if I skipped an extra warlord now then picked one up later. If they come out with an Imperator at some point I absolutely want a second warlord to flank it. In game, I don’t have a clear enough picture of army composition and game size to know if I’d regularly want to field two warlords.