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.

 Crablezworth wrote:


Any chance we could get specific costing for the styrix's weapons? It's a bit weird being asked to buy something by forgeworld essentially blind.

Aye, 15 for the Volkites and 10 for everything else including gravitons and plasma fusils

Lightning cannons also have a place. The smallest platform to have a blast weapon, so will be quite nice against other knights and Warhound squadrons

 zedmeister wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:


Any chance we could get specific costing for the styrix's weapons? It's a bit weird being asked to buy something by forgeworld essentially blind.

Aye, 15 for the Volkites and 10 for everything else including gravitons and plasma fusils

Lightning cannons also have a place. The smallest platform to have a blast weapon, so will be quite nice against other nights and Warhound squadrons

Omnissiah bless you sir


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
The thing is Titans don't age.

The 30K titans are the same as the 40K titans. So there is nothing to stop GW advancing the games age forward and introducing Chaos tainted and totally custom warped titans and then on toward Xenos.

Indeed because of the nature of the game at some stage they will likely have to do it to keep having releases.


I see it as something that will happen, when is hard to say and could well be years off. I think the AT team is very strict in never saying yes nor no because its not current marketing. In fact the only long term marketing GW has ever really done is the Old World game tease. Otherwise they tend to focus on a more 3 month or so window of marketing and info release (with them now attempting an annual update for Necromunda).

AT's reddit has a AMA with the original game designer, it was basically just meant to be like 3-5 titans, that's also the unlikeliness of ever seeing the imperator or warmongers because he's asked about it and it's basically just too out of whack with the other titans. Now this I believe was before the warbringer came out, not sure if that was in the works from the start. I personally find controllong more than 5 titans pretty daunting in terms of space and mental capacity. Unless gargants and eldar titans function more or less similarly to the titans I just don't ever see it. Also, what works well about the game is the mirrored nature, its what keeps it somewhat balanced but also both sides tend to know the stats quickly because all the weapons and titans/knights are available to them.

Unless epic is in the works I just don't see AT expanding in that direction. If we're lucky we'll get more plastic kits for chaos/blackshields, but even then, this is a company that's been able to keep like 2 legio decal sheets in stock/manufactured, for a game that has rules for dozens of titan legions. Not to mention you don't have on the fw side them pumping out legio specific upgrade kits for heraldry, just like shield plaques and banners/flags. So I dunno, the game didn't even make sense marketing wise until the newest starter, which is fantastic. But even the initial starter is sorta baffling, having like the two extremes in scale in the game and a crazy high price with little savings compared to the new starter.

It's more possile they expand AT with something like Pseudo-Epic with very very rudimentary Units like Space Marine Infantry & Tanks or start to release a full Epic (which is set also in the HH) before they release Xenos für AT.

Well, I wouldn't expect pseudo-Epic, and I don't know why xenos would have to be structured differently in terms of force composition either.

It could still be 3-5 Titans, but with Phantoms-Revenants-Wraithknights or Great Gargants-Gargants-Stompas, etc. instead of the Imperial makes/size classes.

Orks have a huge range of Titans, meanwhile forces ilke Eldar and Tyranids can easily have new titans added. The only reason we don't have more of them is because those respective ranges didn't start in the original Titan Legions game and when they did arrive in Epic/Epic40K etc... those games didn't last long before they died off. So there just wasn't time to take their ranges further.


I do agree the design team were very cautious with the game, but I think that if it keeps selling strongly they will keep adding to what they will do and the more it sells the more chance Warped Chaos titans and Xenos will appear. They just don't want to say "yes" until its "Yes in 3 months time the product is on the shelf".
The only hiccup is the general "what the heck is FW doing" which seems to be changing to the specialist game market and has more chance for more resources to be allocated to those games than to the resin side of FW for 40K/AoS

I've just sent an email for the suggestion of Freebooters in White Dwarf.

Considering conversions are easy with plasticard and ork components from Aeronautica, its asking little compared to "please sir, may we have our xenos now?"

Also requested they +1 the bolt cannon on the Castigator, while increasing the point value by 10 and reduce the attack dice to 6. I informed them that we're mostly interested in the kit for the Acheron alone.

Who knows, but all I know is that if we don't ask, we don't get. Lets hope so.

 Overread wrote:
Orks have a huge range of Titans, meanwhile forces ilke Eldar and Tyranids can easily have new titans added. The only reason we don't have more of them is because those respective ranges didn't start in the original Titan Legions game and when they did arrive in Epic/Epic40K etc... those games didn't last long before they died off. So there just wasn't time to take their ranges further.

Pedant alert - I must correct you on how long Eldar Titans have been out. The original Eldar phantom titan debuted in White Dwarf 110 - a month after the release of the original Adeptus Titanicus boxed game in 1988. Warlock titans were added around 1991/92 with the release of the Space Marine 2nd edition Renegades Supplement. White Dwarf 186 showed the Eldar Renevent Scout Titans. White Dwarf 189 showed the Tyranid Bio-Titans. That was some 25-30 years ago. They were around a really long time. We've had two variants of Phantom Titan in Epic, 1 Warlock and 3 different types of Revenants including the infamous piston variant. And that's not including the 40k scale titans from Forgeworld.

 gorgon wrote:
Well, I wouldn't expect pseudo-Epic, and I don't know why xenos would have to be structured differently in terms of force composition either.

It could still be 3-5 Titans, but with Phantoms-Revenants-Wraithknights or Great Gargants-Gargants-Stompas, etc. instead of the Imperial makes/size classes.

But orks don't fight in gargant whaags, ork battles don't consist of a handful of gargants or stompas and nothing else. Granted titans rarely fight "alone" but they're far more independent and the structure is there on both sides of the game, I don't think eldar and orks would make sense in the same way. Some of the worse balance abuse in battlefleet gothic came from them having too many factions and out there mechanics instead of sticking closer to the core mechanics like imperial and chaos fleets. Wanting them to make a model is just not the same as making a game better imo, again if they're restarting epic it seems more viable, but I really doubt they'd just move AT forward 10 thousand years just to add xenos factions in a game named after titans.

There was an armylist for Epic in which players could deploy a Gargant mob. The Eldar Titans were also organized in separate clans, this might not be retconned though since Titans are now often painted in Craftworld colours.

SamusDrake wrote:

Also requested they +1 the bolt cannon on the Castigator, while increasing the point value by 10 and reduce the attack dice to 6. I informed them that we're mostly interested in the kit for the Acheron alone.

Both guns have incorrect Strength and range value, correct range should be 12" long range for each. Castigator cannon also do more shot, or same shot with re-roll 1.

 Malika2 wrote:
There was an armylist for Epic in which players could deploy a Gargant mob. The Eldar Titans were also organized in separate clans, this might not be retconned though since Titans are now often painted in Craftworld colours.

I understand, but they're not independent, divided into clan with their own support fleet and sent off to do very organized, separate, whaaaging. Legions rarely operate alone, but are pretty much designed to like space marines, with their own attendant fleets and support staff, it's honestly what makes the game work, both loyalist and traitor still more or less operate similiarly, fly around in big ships with robots and make planetfall where necessary.

Epic only works because it's not hyper focussed on one aspect but total war in the 40k universe, AT really is more specific to conflicts where both sides wielded titans.

I just don't see it, and worry if they do go that route. This is the same company that won't re-release the acastus command terminal, but have continued selling it in packs of 5, even though the most you can field is one, with full errors. I feel like if they expand into xenos, you'll only see more of those issues.

 Crablezworth wrote:
This is the same company that won't re-release the acastus command terminal, but have continued selling it in packs of 5, even though the most you can field is one, with full errors.

For legio forces, yes. However, One can have a banner of Acastus for every lance in the household.

SamusDrake wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
This is the same company that won't re-release the acastus command terminal, but have continued selling it in packs of 5, even though the most you can field is one, with full errors.

For legio forces, yes. However, One can have a banner of Acastus for every lance in the household.

Guess they get to have up to 5 terminals with errors

SamusDrake wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
This is the same company that won't re-release the acastus command terminal, but have continued selling it in packs of 5, even though the most you can field is one, with full errors.

For legio forces, yes. However, One can have a banner of Acastus for every lance in the household.

Err, no? Auxiliary Banners are one per maniple or lance, if you play bigger games or run multiple light maniples you can have multiple banners of Acastii as well.

Yeah but the multiple maniple thing has taken on a whole new dimension with custom legio rules from ryza, it's not so much multiple maniples being the prob, it's that they can be different legios that makes things a bit nuts with ryza, in addition to running 4 total acastus/asterius

 Crablezworth wrote:
Yeah but the multiple maniple thing has taken on a whole new dimension with custom legio rules from ryza, it's not so much multiple maniples being the prob, it's that they can be different legios that makes things a bit nuts with ryza, in addition to running 4 total acastus/asterius

Not sure I follow. How is running multiple legios any different than it has been from the very beginning? Mostly you're weakening your ability to focus and giving the other side stratagem points unless the game is over 3k points or something and you really need that flexibility for a specific plan. Also, how does that relate to the Acastii in any way?

 Sherrypie wrote:


Err, no? Auxiliary Banners are one per maniple or lance, if you play bigger games or run multiple light maniples you can have multiple banners of Acastii as well.

Y'know, I've totally overlooked that small detail. I had the assumption it was one auxilary banner per titan battleforce.

Errata: Goodness gracious! I swear to you all that I'm not drunk! I'm just writting complete gibberish today...

 Sherrypie wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Yeah but the multiple maniple thing has taken on a whole new dimension with custom legio rules from ryza, it's not so much multiple maniples being the prob, it's that they can be different legios that makes things a bit nuts with ryza, in addition to running 4 total acastus/asterius

Not sure I follow. How is running multiple legios any different than it has been from the very beginning? Mostly you're weakening your ability to focus and giving the other side stratagem points unless the game is over 3k points or something and you really need that flexibility for a specific plan. Also, how does that relate to the Acastii in any way?

You can maximize both legios's maniples to an insane degree given the wargear and traits and still take 4 acastus, something that's already game breaking.

That sounds more like an Acastus problem than anything else though. Taking 4 Knights of any type shouldn't be game-breaking no matter what the force organisation rules might be.

JWBS wrote:
That sounds more like an Acastus problem than anything else though. Taking 4 Knights of any type shouldn't be game-breaking no matter what the force organisation rules might be.

It's both that the acastus is under costed and given their rarity it shouldn't be possible to see 4 together.

 Crablezworth wrote:


It's both that the acastus is under costed and given their rarity it shouldn't be possible to see 4 together.

Sherrypie...I ain't saying nothing!


Its alright, Crablezworth, its a joke between us...

I think it would be kind of a shame though in a game where you can stick 2 Warlords and multiple Reavers and Warhounds on the table if you couldn't manage to include 4 of a certain type of Knight in there, whether they be canonically rare or not.

Jeezo some of you lot really won't be satisfied until Knights really are just speedbumps eh.

If you're still having problems with Acastus even after the nerfing they got - which could be dealt with fine even before that with a modicum of tactics provided you weren't playing on Planet Bowling Ball - perhaps it's time to examine your strategy for any sign of PEBKAC rather than continuing to insist the game is the problem.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Yeah but the multiple maniple thing has taken on a whole new dimension with custom legio rules from ryza, it's not so much multiple maniples being the prob, it's that they can be different legios that makes things a bit nuts with ryza, in addition to running 4 total acastus/asterius

Not sure I follow. How is running multiple legios any different than it has been from the very beginning? Mostly you're weakening your ability to focus and giving the other side stratagem points unless the game is over 3k points or something and you really need that flexibility for a specific plan. Also, how does that relate to the Acastii in any way?

You can maximize both legios's maniples to an insane degree given the wargear and traits and still take 4 acastus, something that's already game breaking.

Those are completely separate things, I don't get why you brought the legios up in this instance. Ryza legios also aren't that wacky. Of course you can focus more on any single aspect of the game with them, but not to any degree I'd call insane.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Jeezo some of you lot really won't be satisfied until Knights really are just speedbumps eh.

If you're still having problems with Acastus even after the nerfing they got - which could be dealt with fine even before that with a modicum of tactics provided you weren't playing on Planet Bowling Ball - perhaps it's time to examine your strategy for any sign of PEBKAC rather than continuing to insist the game is the problem.

LOL, where were you yesterday when I needed you!

For the record Yodhrin I'm actually happy with the Acastus since the FAQ nerf. Just hate the auxiliary banner rule which prevents me from ordering more of them.

SamusDrake wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Jeezo some of you lot really won't be satisfied until Knights really are just speedbumps eh.

If you're still having problems with Acastus even after the nerfing they got - which could be dealt with fine even before that with a modicum of tactics provided you weren't playing on Planet Bowling Ball - perhaps it's time to examine your strategy for any sign of PEBKAC rather than continuing to insist the game is the problem.

LOL, where were you yesterday when I needed you!

For the record Yodhrin I'm actually happy with the Acastus since the FAQ nerf. Just hate the auxiliary banner rule which prevents me from ordering more of them.

Is what's he's said even correct though? He's pretty much the only person I've ever seen saying they're "just fine" before nerfs. He's been called out on it several times in this thread, I've even seen people accuse him of not having played against them since his comments on pre-nerf Acastus are so bizarrely out of synch with almost everyone else that plays the game (literally everyone else in my case - I've honestly never seen anyone, other than Yohdrin, say that pre-nerf Acastus are remotely acceptable, and if I have to choose between him being a genius above all others in the field of plastic replica Titan warfare, or just outlandishly erroneous in his proclamations, I have to choose the latter).

JWBS.

Yes and I was one of them to call them out, which I'm surprised you don't recall. I was also the first one in this very topic to identify that the Acastus had a serious problem. And I even put them to the test.

And the fact is that I identified it as a points and banner size problem and GW agreed because that was the exact action they took against the unit in the FAQ.

In the games I was playing pre-FAQ the Legio would always get wiped out as the points imbalance meant the Household could afford to add a Warhound to its force, because the Porphrions were "buy-one-get-one-free". Post FAQ that Warhound is gone and the Legio now wins as many games as it loses.

Last year I did not agree with Yodhrin, but the results speak for themselves and now agree with them. And its not just my games - even in the recent WD battlereport, the Loyalists with the only Porphyrions in the game was utterly wiped out. A single Warlord dealt with them because the player - by their own admission - was careless.

This post is not mean't in any provocative way, and hope we can keep this discussion healthy.

I'm referring specifically to the claim that pre-nerf Acastus were okay, something that he apparently still believes, and you apparently don't, but idk. I'd also argue that the change to the numbers of Acastus allowable was not implemented because it was the 'right' nerf, but because it was the easiest nerf (it was basically a veto on Acastus first adopted by TOs, since they can't reasonably be expected to modify points or profiles, and then reasonably be expected to diffuse this info throughout the community w/o friction). I'd argue that this nerf was embraced by the AT team due to laziness because, frankly, it's a massively anti-fun change that makes no sense for players or even when considering fluff (Three Warlord titans, Avatars incarnate of the Omnissiah in your army? Sure. No problem. Four ACASTUS KNIGHTS you say? Are you insane man? Absolutely not!). The Acastus limit sucks, personally I don't think this can be reasonably argued. It only exists, after all, because they cocked up the balance on them.

JWBS wrote:
I'm referring specifically to the claim that pre-nerf Acastus were okay, something that he apparently still believes, and you apparently don't, but idk. I'd also argue that the change to the numbers of Acastus allowable was not implemented because it was the 'right' nerf, but because it was the easiest nerf (it was basically a veto on Acastus first adopted by TOs, since they can't reasonably be expected to modify points or profiles, and then reasonably be expected to diffuse this info throughout the community w/o friction). I'd argue that this nerf was embraced by the AT team due to laziness because, frankly, it's a massively anti-fun change that makes no sense for players or even when considering fluff (Three Warlord titans, Avatars incarnate of the Omnissiah in your army? Sure. No problem. Four ACASTUS KNIGHTS you say? Are you insane man? Absolutely not!). The Acastus limit sucks, personally I don't think this can be reasonably argued. It only exists, after all, because they cocked up the balance on them.

It would have been a much nicer change to simply drop blast from the weapons instead of hard cap numbers allowed.

The Acastus weapons stat are completely garbage made up and does not scale accordingly to the HH/8th ed rule. Range is too long, missile pod had more range, is stronger and does more shot than intended, blast is not big enough to be considered a blast weapon in AT.