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.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

I am quite happy to lose against an opponent who out thinks me, or engineers their own luck. If I lose because of random stuff that unfairly penalizes me because dice rolled higher/lower than they did against my opponent? No thank you.

Why are you playing a random dominant game? Every time you roll a die you introduce the possibility of being penalized by pure happenstance. With dozens if not hundreds of these rolls throughout the course of a game, it means that more than half of the outcome is determined by chance. That is the implicit terms of service we all sign when we play a game of toy soldiers and chance cubes.

I can't speak for you, but not playing a random dominant game is pretty much the point. I am in control of my dice in so much as I can play to secure bonus dice/positive modifiers etc. Equally I'm in control of my models and how they move and act in order to try and force my opponent to act as sub-optimally as possible.

I'm content that dice peaks and troughs happen. This isn't the same as "roll a dice and on this arbitrary number a thing does or doesn't happen."

Out of interest for a constructive discussion, would you rather prefer a variation of the rule that did not necessarily cover the entire battlefield, but parts of it where it would be up to the player to walk in and brave the risks? Like say, having players place d6 (or just 6, or something that scales with the table size) areas (6" squares, perhaps) of intense lightning on the field at the beginning of the match, that might then either sit there or scatter d10" at the beginning of every turn to still incorporate the random element of unpredictable weather to the match? Or place those areas every Strategy phase?

i think weather could have influence on how far you can see, but nothing els i wont play the rules for lightning and stuff.
its diffecult enough to keep them alive

 Sherrypie wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

I am quite happy to lose against an opponent who out thinks me, or engineers their own luck. If I lose because of random stuff that unfairly penalizes me because dice rolled higher/lower than they did against my opponent? No thank you.

Why are you playing a random dominant game? Every time you roll a die you introduce the possibility of being penalized by pure happenstance. With dozens if not hundreds of these rolls throughout the course of a game, it means that more than half of the outcome is determined by chance. That is the implicit terms of service we all sign when we play a game of toy soldiers and chance cubes.

I can't speak for you, but not playing a random dominant game is pretty much the point. I am in control of my dice in so much as I can play to secure bonus dice/positive modifiers etc. Equally I'm in control of my models and how they move and act in order to try and force my opponent to act as sub-optimally as possible.

I'm content that dice peaks and troughs happen. This isn't the same as "roll a dice and on this arbitrary number a thing does or doesn't happen."

Out of interest for a constructive discussion, would you rather prefer a variation of the rule that did not necessarily cover the entire battlefield, but parts of it where it would be up to the player to walk in and brave the risks? Like say, having players place d6 (or just 6, or something that scales with the table size) areas (6" squares, perhaps) of intense lightning on the field at the beginning of the match, that might then either sit there or scatter d10" at the beginning of every turn to still incorporate the random element of unpredictable weather to the match? Or place those areas every Strategy phase?

Funnily enough, I was having a similar thought already. I was thinking that you placed a token to indicate the sensors registering a build up in a particular area at the start of the turn, then have the lighting strike at the end. Either way, that allows players to make an informed decision, especially if a danger area is in a prime firing lane or near an objective, and react, as opposed to "oh, I've rolled several sixes and now my titan's gun is hanging off."

The weather conditions are an optional rule, are they not? Personally, I think if you're going to include envirnmental conditions like this, they should be random, and part of your strategy should be how to deal with them (having reserves, or a fallback plan so you don't leave a titan stuck out on its own if there's a possibility it could suffer damage).

If that's not something you want, then don't use it, but don't try to claim it's somehow wrong.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

I am quite happy to lose against an opponent who out thinks me, or engineers their own luck. If I lose because of random stuff that unfairly penalizes me because dice rolled higher/lower than they did against my opponent? No thank you.

Why are you playing a random dominant game? Every time you roll a die you introduce the possibility of being penalized by pure happenstance. With dozens if not hundreds of these rolls throughout the course of a game, it means that more than half of the outcome is determined by chance. That is the implicit terms of service we all sign when we play a game of toy soldiers and chance cubes.

I can't speak for you, but not playing a random dominant game is pretty much the point. I am in control of my dice in so much as I can play to secure bonus dice/positive modifiers etc. Equally I'm in control of my models and how they move and act in order to try and force my opponent to act as sub-optimally as possible.

I'm content that dice peaks and troughs happen. This isn't the same as "roll a dice and on this arbitrary number a thing does or doesn't happen."

Out of interest for a constructive discussion, would you rather prefer a variation of the rule that did not necessarily cover the entire battlefield, but parts of it where it would be up to the player to walk in and brave the risks? Like say, having players place d6 (or just 6, or something that scales with the table size) areas (6" squares, perhaps) of intense lightning on the field at the beginning of the match, that might then either sit there or scatter d10" at the beginning of every turn to still incorporate the random element of unpredictable weather to the match? Or place those areas every Strategy phase?

Funnily enough, I was having a similar thought already. I was thinking that you placed a token to indicate the sensors registering a build up in a particular area at the start of the turn, then have the lighting strike at the end. Either way, that allows players to make an informed decision, especially if a danger area is in a prime firing lane or near an objective, and react, as opposed to "oh, I've rolled several sixes and now my titan's gun is hanging off."

I like that, but it is gamewise reasonably close to already existing rules like the fault lines in the death of the Magma City scenario, where you have counters on the table that explode randomly during the game. They don't give a warning though, so they are not exactly the same and I like yours more, but hey. Given that Adeptus Titanicus is at its heart aimed for narrative-minded folk, I don't personally see that much of a problem with having random effects that affect the whole table since the area isn't too large anyway (it's not a whole war front, usually just a few hundred meters) and the usual scifi-weather should affect everything. I see your point though and can respect wanting rules that force informed decisions like averting a build up of lightning, but also feel there is enough space for both kinds of effects in the rules, especially as we haven't yet seen what the other 6 environmental tables are or how the campaign rules work. As it is, it is very easy to just leave stuff that one doesn't like out of the game: when I'm playing with new players, I usually ask do they want to use stratagems, princeps seniores traits, destructable terrain or any other bits of the game that can easily be left out by personal taste or intended game experience.

Same with this, one can decide what's the level of affect they want their environs to have:

1) Strategic level, something to keep constantly in mind even before the game. Do we want this game to be more pure as a match or more at the whims of chance like a historical fight (gamified and abstracted, of course)? If the first is desired, sure, let's use something that is constantly in effect like adding extra damage from corrosive atmosphere in there and everyone gets the same. If the latter, the players WANT the possibility of losing their Waterloo because the rains muddied the field too much for artillery to be moved effectively or in this case the possibility of cracking open a Warlord with an intrepid Warhound that just barely manages to strip its shields in time for a bolt out of the blue. The latter is not objectively bad rules writing, when it is an optional rule to add into the game if both players so desire. It does not prevent others from enjoying their battle of wits in a more controlled manner, but it does allow the narrative folk to go in the battle dreading what might happen. What I hope is incorporated in the campaign rules, or is at least easily added there, is the possibility for generals to look at the map of the warzone (we know it will have a map system) and have an inkling of what the weather and other environmental conditions (mud, swamp, barren fields, dense cityscape...) are in each area so that they have proper strategic thought about where they want to fight before the clash happens. That would also answer the intellectual problem of not wanting purely random effects: if you CHOOSE to go into war in an area under the lightning storm, which then affects the whole battlefield of the game, you'd done that in an informed manner and as a calculated risk like a real commander would. A possible example: there might be a rolling thunder over an important repairing station the enemy controls, your forces are in an adjacent area and poised to attack while the enemy is still one maneuver too far from reinforcing their light defences. Do you attack now and risk losing your engines to the storm while the enemy plays for time or do you wait for the storm to dissipate but risk facing a larger force of defenders? I'm not sure how the system is going to play out, but something like that could make for a very interesting game.

2) Tactical level, where you are more concerned with what's in front of you here and now. Pure random is less interesting here, whereas something like your proposed build-ups constantly add to the shifting nature of war and force movement. Still, even here it is not entirely without merit, as an old adage goes: "a good tactician capitalizes on an opportunity, a master makes their own". Since this is largely a game of maneuver with slow trickling of damage here and there until suddenly someone falls into a death spiral, having both constant effects like extra damage for reliable tactics and sudden openings can be fun. The core game play still remains the same, except you might have to spin on a dime and do something unanticipated a bit more often than usually as either your or their flank surprisingly collapses or a hole in their line appears. It is not without historical precedent that in war something WILL go fubar and accidents happen out of the blue, so these things have great value for those inclined towards narrative view. One of my favourites was "the Battle of the Schnapps" in 1788 where the Austrian army ended up firing on itself in the middle of the night, causing 1200 casualties, losing a bunch of their cannons, pushing the Holy Roman emperor into a creek in panic, routing themselves and eventually losing the city of Karansebes to the Ottomans because some of their outriders didn't want to share their freshly bought alcohol with the infantry

New preview:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/01/18/18th-jan-titandeath-the-legions-of-the-war-for-beta-garmonfw-homepage-post-3/

Really REALLY like the scheme for Legio Defensor:

 zedmeister wrote:
NEw preview:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/01/18/18th-jan-titandeath-the-legions-of-the-war-for-beta-garmonfw-homepage-post-3/

Really REALLY like the scheme for Legio Defensor:

So do I, but I'm still grumpy that they took my legio's name.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
So do I, but I'm still grumpy that they took my legio's name.

Are you a Transformers fan?

Lupercal Maniple is pretty sweet. Tricksy to use right, but surprisingly powerful. Also bodes well in case we get Ursus Claws

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Lupercal Maniple is pretty sweet. Tricksy to use right, but surprisingly powerful. Also bodes well in case we get Ursus Claws

Thumbs up from me!

We knew Audax wasn't coming in this one, but IIRC Suturvora was mentioned on one of their slides a while back. Just a wild speculation, but I wonder if they're now planning Shadow Crusade-oriented supplement down the road? Legio Lysansa would another obvious candidate for such a book, in addition to Audax and Suturvora.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Lupercal Maniple is pretty sweet. Tricksy to use right, but surprisingly powerful. Also bodes well in case we get Ursus Claws

Not sure how it's tricksy, as an avid Warhound user that seems pretty straightforward to me. Blunter and more aggressive than, say, Venator, which requires some stunts to maneuver your Reaver so it'll actually be useful, whereas the Lupercal basically allows you to shift your squadrons for maximum effect as the battle flows like water around them. +2 on Coordinated Attacks is just gravy. Tasty, tasty gravy with murder on the side.

Defensor do look really good I wish there had been more info about legio colour schemes and background available at launch though.

Pre-orders are up in NZ... the Warlord weapon sprue is $85. For comparsion, Necromunda gangs are $83 and £25 on the UK site.

All of the color schemes look great, I hope there is plenty more to be seen in the book. Especially for some of these knight houses that i've never heard of on the new transfer sheets.

 xttz wrote:
Pre-orders are up in NZ... the Warlord weapon sprue is $85. For comparsion, Necromunda gangs are $83 and £25 on the UK site.

So probably around $50-55 ish dollars US

Nice list of Knight Houses and their allied Titan Legions:

 gruebot wrote:

 xttz wrote:
Pre-orders are up in NZ... the Warlord weapon sprue is $85. For comparsion, Necromunda gangs are $83 and £25 on the UK site.

So probably around $50-55 ish dollars US

The havocs seem a nice comparison point, they are NZD 85, GBP 25.50, EUR 35, USD 45.

 zedmeister wrote:
Nice list of Knight Houses and their allied Titan Legions:

House Orhlacc are listed as having blue and gold heraldry Possible mix up aside, that list has got quite a few new Knight houses and some name only Legios.

 gruebot wrote:

 xttz wrote:
Pre-orders are up in NZ... the Warlord weapon sprue is $85. For comparsion, Necromunda gangs are $83 and £25 on the UK site.

So probably around $50-55 ish dollars US

At that price, you might as well get another Warlord?

Or look in Shapeways...?

AUD$98 for that tiny Reaver?

Jesus...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
AUD$98 for that tiny Reaver?

Jesus...

Same price as the last one. Dunno why you’re shocked.

 xttz wrote:
Pre-orders are up in NZ... the Warlord weapon sprue is $85. For comparsion, Necromunda gangs are $83 and £25 on the UK site.

Japan the price band was even higher. 8000 yen which accounted to contemptator dreadnought which is 35 pounds or 46 euro's.

If that's the euro price I have serious replanning to do. Maybe I should abandon the plan of complete weapon sets afterall and just floooooooood myself titan count to ridiculous numbers.

What I would take away from the recent Necro releases announced in plastic including niche stuff like the Ambot would be that it's incredibly likely new Titan types will be plastic kits.

 Nostromodamus wrote:
Same price as the last one. Dunno why you’re shocked.

Never bothered looking at the price of the old one.

tneva82 wrote:

 xttz wrote:
Pre-orders are up in NZ... the Warlord weapon sprue is $85. For comparsion, Necromunda gangs are $83 and £25 on the UK site.

Japan the price band was even higher. 8000 yen which accounted to contemptator dreadnought which is 35 pounds or 46 euro's.

If that's the euro price I have serious replanning to do. Maybe I should abandon the plan of complete weapon sets afterall and just floooooooood myself titan count to ridiculous numbers.

I think you misread it. The Reaver is 8000. The weapon sprue is 6000.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
AUD$98 for that tiny Reaver?

Jesus...

The "tiny" reaver is significantly bigger than the slightly more expensive contemptator. Why are you surprised? If anything reaver is unusually cheap for GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chikout wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 xttz wrote:
Pre-orders are up in NZ... the Warlord weapon sprue is $85. For comparsion, Necromunda gangs are $83 and £25 on the UK site.

Japan the price band was even higher. 8000 yen which accounted to contemptator dreadnought which is 35 pounds or 46 euro's.

If that's the euro price I have serious replanning to do. Maybe I should abandon the plan of complete weapon sets afterall and just floooooooood myself titan count to ridiculous numbers.

I think you misread it. The Reaver is 8000. The weapon sprue is 6000.

Reaver is 8200. Maybe there was price error in Japanese site for a while? Wouldn't be first time. OR I misread. Could be that anyway.

Still at 37e tad pricier than I expected so I'm downgrading plan of 12 sprues(6 warlord, 6 reaver to cover all the warlords and reavers of my both legions) to 2 sprues of both(to give 2 sprues for 3 titans) for Mortis. Victorum will get by without wysiwyg equipment at home games.

according to GMGs book review the maniples are

Corsair- 5 reavers, all reavers can move full outside of arc

Janissary- 2 reaver 2 hounds (reaver+hound extra) when a titan moves a knight banner can also move

Regia- 2 warlords (king and queen)+hound, 2 more hounds for full, if either warlords pass command check while in 12" the other one may also do without a roll, and warhound courtiers can merge shields with their king and queen within 3" rather than b2b

lupercal- the one previewed before

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZx7sPUhnGI

That's some interesting maniples, all lending themselves to different styles of play and army structures.

Warhounds and Warlords is an interesting thing to do, as is a specific maniple to make use of knights.

Need some more reavers it seems...I only have 3 per legion. I probably won't get every possible combo for Victorum(since they won't be getting wysiwyg weapons anyway due to price of sprues they won't be for tournaments anyway) but for Mortis I would like every maniple in full as option. Which means 2 more reavers...

Maybe I'll get 1 box of new reavers. Maybe I can get by with just 4 missile launchers.

Embedding my review for those that don't want to jump to a new window. Thanks Mothman for the shout!