GW Adeptus Titanicus news and rumours - Plastic Direwolf Kit!

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.

**SamusDrake**

JWBS wrote:

Do people actually quibble about wysiwyg with these models? It makes no odds to me as I don't game and would build them how I thought looked best no matter what, but it seems to me to be the easiest thing in the world (standard practice even, given what I've heard about how bad gatling is on these minis) for people to say "These knights all have Thermal lance and chainswords" (or whatever the good conficuration is).

Well, I'm a casual player at heart, but if I were to take a game to a more involved level of play - say a tournament or other such event - then I could be on the receiving end of some "quibbling" if I haven't got the correct models. I'm finding Titanicus to be that kind of game for me.

Oh, with the new coordinated strike rule, the "gatlers" are now useful void shield strippers( sounds like an exotic dance troope! ), so long as they pass their command checks. If its the High Scion or Senecial banner then the chances of passing are very good.

**Yodhrin**

Crimson wrote:
That is an utterly bizarre definition. You said you wanted to put rule appropriate gear on your knights. That is going for WYSIWYG. Your motivation doesn't change that.

The motivation entirely changes it, what are you on about?

Intent > action > outcome.

My intent is to make cool models(to suit my own taste). My action is to make cool models. In this specific instance, the outcome is models that match(to some degree, I'll use however many meltanipples I like regardless of the models) their actual army list loadout.

The intent of WYSIWYG is to make models that match their loadout. The action is to build them with the options that match their loadout. The outcome is always models that match their loadout.

And once again, to illustrate the difference.

When I make a Mordheim warband my intent is to make cool models. My action is to make cool models. The outcome is models that almost never match their actual loadout on the roster, especially after several games have passed. Because that was never my objective.

WYSIWYG is not just a state in which a model exists, it's an approach to making models with a particular desired outcome, that's why it has its own well-known acronym.

**Nurglitch**

I just wanted to thank Yodhrin for adding the word "meltanipples" to my vocabulary. Thanks, Yodhrin!

**Toofast**

Yodhrin wrote:
Crimson wrote:
WYSIWYG is not a rule, it just means the models have right gear regardless of the motivation for building them that way. Some care about it for gameplay reasons, some (like you and me) care about it for their personal aethetics OCD reasons.

I've literally never in ~25 years seen anyone advocate wysiwyg from anything other than a rules-based perspective until this very moment.

That's why I do wysiwyg, it makes things easier for me and my opponent during a game, and my personal OCD just wants things to be "right". I have been teaching my gf to play titanicus using her imperial knight as a warlord and armigers as reavers. I always have to ask her what weapon cards she's using and it slows the game down. I also have to pay attention when I'm moving that I don't forget what guns she has and move into range of something. I can't wait to get her proper titans built and magnetized.

**Crimson**

Yodhrin wrote:
Crimson wrote:
That is an utterly bizarre definition. You said you wanted to put rule appropriate gear on your knights. That is going for WYSIWYG. Your motivation doesn't change that.

The motivation entirely changes it, what are you on about?

Intent > action > outcome.

My intent is to make cool models(to suit my own taste). My action is to make cool models. In this specific instance, the outcome is models that match(to some degree, I'll use however many meltanipples I like regardless of the models) their actual army list loadout.

The intent of WYSIWYG is to make models that match their loadout. The action is to build them with the options that match their loadout. The outcome is always models that match their loadout.

And once again, to illustrate the difference.

When I make a Mordheim warband my intent is to make cool models. My action is to make cool models. The outcome is models that almost never match their actual loadout on the roster, especially after several games have passed. Because that was never my objective.

WYSIWYG is not just a state in which a model exists, it's an approach to making models with a particular desired outcome, that's why it has its own well-known acronym.

This is getting truly bizarre, but I guess we're doing this, it's not like there's gonna any AT news. I was not talking about your Mordheim models, I haven't heard of them before you brough them up. I was takning about your non sequitur statements:

Yodhrin wrote:

I don't give a gnat's fart about wysiwyg

I want to give them the correct weapons because it looks better.

Right after saying that you don't care about WYSIWYG you express desire to build the models in WYSIWYG manner, thus you care about it, at least in this instance. "Giving the models correct weapons" is what WYSIWYG means!

**SamusDrake**

The Meltanipples(TM) are way too small to differentiate from heavynipples(TM) - which don't appear to have any use in the game.

An alternative would have been to have a separate hole on the terminal to indicate the banner as being equiped with Meltanipples(TM) or Heavynipples(TM). Then just having a points cost for the banner as a whole.

Personally, I think the Knightnipples(TM) are easily damaged when removed from the sprue - especially the Metlanipple(TM).

"Meltanipple(s)", "Heavynipple(s)" and "Knightnipple(s)" are the strict trademarks of Yodhrin. All rights reserved.

**ImAGeek**

Crimson wrote:
Yodhrin wrote:
Crimson wrote:
That is an utterly bizarre definition. You said you wanted to put rule appropriate gear on your knights. That is going for WYSIWYG. Your motivation doesn't change that.

The motivation entirely changes it, what are you on about?

Intent > action > outcome.

My intent is to make cool models(to suit my own taste). My action is to make cool models. In this specific instance, the outcome is models that match(to some degree, I'll use however many meltanipples I like regardless of the models) their actual army list loadout.

The intent of WYSIWYG is to make models that match their loadout. The action is to build them with the options that match their loadout. The outcome is always models that match their loadout.

And once again, to illustrate the difference.

When I make a Mordheim warband my intent is to make cool models. My action is to make cool models. The outcome is models that almost never match their actual loadout on the roster, especially after several games have passed. Because that was never my objective.

WYSIWYG is not just a state in which a model exists, it's an approach to making models with a particular desired outcome, that's why it has its own well-known acronym.

This is getting truly bizarre, but I guess we're doing this, it's not like there's gonna any AT news. I was not talking about your Mordheim models, I haven't heard of them before you brough them up. I was takning about your non sequitur statements:

Yodhrin wrote:

I don't give a gnat's fart about wysiwyg

I want to give them the correct weapons because it looks better.

Right after saying that you don't care about WYSIWYG you express desire to build the models in WYSIWYG manner, thus you care about it, at least in this instance. "Giving the models correct weapons" is what WYSIWYG means!

Dude, all he means is that he doesn’t do it for a rules reason. Can we stop the semantics argument now?

**Strg Alt**

zedmeister wrote:
Aeronautica teaser:

I have never ever seen such a lame ass teaser. We want tanks, artillery, bikes and infantry back in AT. GW, get your act together.

**Norchack**

I love AT. Like you, I'd like to see it receive many more expansions. Nevertheless, I understand that GW have many projects they're interested in pursuing; AI is one worth they're effort. As others have mentioned, I hope it's compatible with AT. If it isn't compatible with AT, I won't take it as a personal insult.

**Mothman**

Honestly I think its better if they build towards epic through titanicus, then adding aeronautica (gives us the planes for it) then later add tanks and infantry. I remember being at the seminar last year and they talked about the issues they had with old epic and and titanicus, that its basically a dev sink, because once epic started people were not happy until every faction was in, or they add more stuff, and that Titanicus was basically killed off due to focus on Epic so they never had a chance to expand as much on titans.

Its most likely if Epic returns it will be horus heresy only, just because its easier, adapting just the HH line to that scale will likely use alot of resources let along doing 40k era.

**Overread**

I don't know if GW can even keep AT as pure HH only for its lifespan. The thing is Imperial VS Imperial is fun for only so long.

People want Chaos, they want Xenos - they want to see different design aesthetics and different races and forces and factions. Right now the only difference in AT is legion paintschemes and insignias and some minor rules alterations.

People want Knights with spikes on them and the fact that GW has done them for 40K means that its very likely we will see them appear for AT in the future; building into a full chaos release.

I've full expectation that if AT keeps selling well GW will expand it. Epic is a different kettle of fish and perhaps GW's plan is to slow grow it in stages with separate product lines.

Right now we'll have AT and Aeronautica - that's titans and air units that GW can develop as their own games on their own and expand at their own pace each. Now they might throw another 3rd game into the mix with only tanks, just tanks nothing else. Then they'd only have to add infantry (in the past they did that with one or two plastic boxes for each block of infantry - so its really quick and easy) to expand into a combined arms "epic game"

**SamusDrake**

Epic would be nice but as predicted they have given us a second "epic-scale" game so soon after Titanicus. Thats pretty good.

Looking further down the road( next year )...probably tanks for Titanicus, and leave it at that. One of the main conflicts featured in the AT rule book described the traitors using tanks to ambush loyalist titans, so it seems likely. White Dwarf might print experimental rules for using imperial Aeronautica units in AT, but thats just a guess.

If Aeronautica has at least the Eldar then I'm game!

Oh, one last thought; the Orks could make their way into Titanicus through looted imperial titans and knights. Got a feeling deep down that this could happen as the Armageddon wars are very popular with 40K players and as AT is a game for more advanced players...converting existing warhounds and knights with resin conversion kits - or just encouraging players to let loose with some scary DIY - doesn't seem unreasonable. They could still use the imperial terminals, but include rules for pushing engines to dangerous levels to deliver extra speed and firepower - running the risk of blowing up! That would be a job for White Dwarf!

**Crimson**

I certainly would prefer AT to be expanded into giant units of other factions rather than into the Epic direction. As I said in another thread (I think it was another thread and not this one...) buying same models in two different scales is not particularly interesting, so tiny 40K tanks or minuscule marines really do not appeal to me much. (I guess it would be cool to have some models for such just for scale establishing purposes, if the game doesn't focus on them.) But Titans and other giant things are either unusable or difficult to use in 40K, so there is less overlap.

**Fajita Fan**

I’m a casual player but WYSIWYG is still really important in a game that can take 3 hours. I hate having to manually keep track of which guys have meltas, which guy with an orange head has a plasma, whether the guys with no arms have missiles or auto cannons, etc.

My store has had people show up with partially assembled models and expected opponents to remember which of their IG models are actually assault marines or where their plasma guns are.

To me the lack of weapon options for my AT legios offered me a really fun opportunity to 3D print and scratch build a lot of fun weapon parts!

**SamusDrake**

Fajita Fan wrote:

To me the lack of weapon options for my AT legios offered me a really fun opportunity to 3D print and scratch build a lot of fun weapon parts!

Being into the 3D art thing I would love to have a printer but the set up is a tad expensive for what it is. Although building titans, scenery and weapons from plasticard is a great hobby in itself, I must say.

**Togusa**

totalfailure wrote:
Disappointing to hear the Molech book was victim of the typical quality editing that seems to infest GW and the game industry in general these days. Is it too tough to have someone off of the design team proof the
book before you send it off to the printers, and again before the print run? This lazy, sloppy stuff is getting old, like Warlord leaving a half page of significant rules out of the recent Erewhon book....

Ditch print for digital and this will not be as big of an issue. Until they embrace the 21st century, expect that these kinds of things will continue to not only happen, but be a large problem due to the time it takes to issue a fix!

**AegisGrimm**

I just want appropriate weapons for Titans and Knights because 90% of the spectacle of Adeptus Titanicus is marvelling at how detailed the tiny versions of what are normally huge 28mm models are, and how accurate those details are. Yeah, its also great to have WYSIWYG for better game flow, but it's also great for the cool-ness factor. I love seeing all the details being transferred over.

**Fajita Fan**

SamusDrake wrote:
Fajita Fan wrote:

To me the lack of weapon options for my AT legios offered me a really fun opportunity to 3D print and scratch build a lot of fun weapon parts!

Being into the 3D art thing I would love to have a printer but the set up is a tad expensive for what it is. Although building titans, scenery and weapons from plasticard is a great hobby in itself, I must say.

Dunno about you Europeans but many public libraries in the US are doing 3D printing for free or dirt cheap. That’s how I did mine.

**Chopstick**

Spoiler:

-The new Loyalist / Traitor stratagem cards are not just reprints of the main rule books cards - they include new cards as well. It was unclear if they include the stratagems from Doom of Molech or if they are entirely new.

-The special titans will include some special rules to make them stand apart from a standard chassis. It was unclear if they are limited to a specific Legio or if they can be added as reinforcements to any maniple.

-The Cerastus patterns that are currently missing (archaon and castigator) are being done in plastic and not as resin upgrades. They is currently no ETA on when they will be released.

-The team keen to also include the Mechanicum knights but are unclear on how they want to progress with them. Resin upgrades are one option as the distinctive difference is the carapace but the shin armour is also different. The current plastic kit has these moulded on but would it make a difference at this scale? Whatever the end result is, we will get Mechanicum knights but not for a while.

-A big emphasis, which has been consistent since the release of AT, has been that the team is not looking at adding infantry and tanks to this game. They are fully focused on creating background of engine battles rather than events where titans are merely there to provide fire support.

-This is one area that the AT team want to develop; the growing differences between Loyalist and Traitor. Through the use of stratagems and wargear - sometimes legio specific, the team want to begin to identify the changes between Loyalist and Traitor. In a game where there are only a small units, this is one of the things that can add greater differentiation between units and forces.

-These differences will be fed out through campaign books in the most part; there as discussion around the release of Mechanicum knights that could be linked to a book about Mechanicum vs. Dark Mechanicum for example. It was also mentioned about blackshield forces that have just walked away from both sides or declared their forge world or system independent.

-As well as the new scenery kits previewed, the designers also talked about me scenery like fortification lines, orbital defences and hive defences. This links back to the Titandeath campaign book or possibly future campaigns.

White Dwarf will soon include a feature about homebrew legios and give the option to create custom rules for your own legio rather than borrowing an existing Legios rules. This will take the form of a series of tables, one each for: Legio traits, Legio stratagems; Legio wargear and princeps traits. There will be 10 options in each table. Some of these will allow you to pick from existing Legio rules but others will be unique.

Full Source : https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1457146014410018&id=384163051708325&ref=page_internal&__tn__=%2As%2As-R

According to this source :
-Other cerastus Knight in plastic! (no Atrapos

)

-Mechanicum Knight undecided as resin or plastic.

-Strategem card pack had new cards ( not surprised)

-No plan on adding tanks or infantry atm

-Homebrew Legio in WD!

**schoon**

Thanks for that, Chopstick!

**Chopstick**

Also judging by that statement from the interview I don't see Knight Dominus or Armiger anytime soon, probably after all of the FW stuff are made. Those 2 would have been a real game changer for a Knight army.

And i will be making illegal Cerastus configuration just for display, because I think they look cool

**tneva82**

SamusDrake wrote:
The Meltanipples(TM) are way too small to differentiate from heavynipples(TM) - which don't appear to have any use in the game.

An alternative would have been to have a separate hole on the terminal to indicate the banner as being equiped with Meltanipples(TM) or Heavynipples(TM). Then just having a points cost for the banner as a whole.

Personally, I think the Knightnipples(TM) are easily damaged when removed from the sprue - especially the Metlanipple(TM).

"Meltanipple(s)", "Heavynipple(s)" and "Knightnipple(s)" are the strict trademarks of Yodhrin. All rights reserved.

Umm so either melta's would become LOT more expensive(everybody expected to have meltas) or LOT more powerful(all get melta for same price). As specific model which has melta is important you can't just go "this banner has 1 melta". either none have, all have or you need to be exact on what model has it. and for that wysiwyg is most easy way to identify.

**xttz**

Downloadable command terminals:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/05/14/adeptus-titanicus-downloadable-command-terminalsgw-homepage-post-2fw-homepage-post-1/

~~It says it applies to Titans but I only see a link for Knights atm.~~

Edit: The link has just been amended and now includes Titan terminals too.

**Yodhrin**

Well blow me down. And they're extremely high resolution images as well.

They must be having real issues with their card accessory people if they're willing to give these away for free, and boy am I glad I put off buying extra terminals over and above the Rules box.

**JWBS**

xttz wrote:
Downloadable command terminals:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/05/14/adeptus-titanicus-downloadable-command-terminalsgw-homepage-post-2fw-homepage-post-1/

~~It says it applies to Titans but I only see a link for Knights atm.~~

Edit: The link has just been amended and now includes Titan terminals too.

People that bought the most recent run of card terminals might be a bit / very dissatisfied that this wasn't available from day one

**Stormonu**

Now they just need to make them form-fillable PDFs

**xttz**

Interestingly they all say 'Copyright Games Workshop Limited 2020' rather than 2018/19. Was this adjusted layout developed for some release coming next year?

**Commander Cain**

Spoiler:

I feel like these guys just got brushed over in favour of arguing about knight weapons but they look awesome! Glad they decided to make the most badass knight available in plastic, it will definitely be getting added to my collection at some point.

Happy to see the return of Aeronautica Imperialis, I never got the chance to grab any of the models and if they get a plastic release this time round I will be all over it. Hopefully it is not just imperial vs imperial though, if GW are smart they will copy the success of X-Wing and have at least two factions from the get go.

**Chopstick**

Can't wait to use a Thunderbolt Squadro to crap all over the poor titan with no Anti air or turrets

, I hope the void shield had rule to stop flyers from getting close.

At least the Techpriest realize that and add 2 AA turret to the Warbringer, oh the Flyer horror

**zedmeister**

Chopstick wrote:
Can't wait to use a Thunderbolt Squadro to crap all over the poor titan with no Anti air or turrets , I hope the void shield had rule to stop flyers from getting close.

At least the Techpriest realize that and add 2 AA turret to the Warbringer, oh the Flyer horror

A single thunderbolt has 4 autocannons and 2 lascannons. Acastus knights have either two autocannons or two lascannon. So, a quick zoom on their previewed rules template and guess-extrapolating, a thunderbolt will deliver 2 Strength 4 hits and 2 strength 6 hits. Strong enough to dent shields, but most titans will be shrugging off those kind of weapons. Even 3-4 thunderbolts will struggle with a Warhound and that’s assuming above average rolling.