GW Adeptus Titanicus news and rumours

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.

**changemod**

JWBS wrote:
changemod wrote:

So yeah, I was wanting to know if this never before seen Titan type was an infrequent anomaly or a semi common mainline unit that it’s a little weird to have not seen towering over battlefields, visible from dozens of miles away, in any number of deployments in any number of prior sources.

You wrote a whole post saying you understand the need for a setting with necessary imaginative leeway and then in the last two lines you've essentially said "Also I want retcons". I don't get it.

No? I said “Also I want to know when something is jarring”.

**JWBS**

changemod wrote:
JWBS wrote:
changemod wrote:

So yeah, I was wanting to know if this never before seen Titan type was an infrequent anomaly or a semi common mainline unit that it’s a little weird to have not seen towering over battlefields, visible from dozens of miles away, in any number of deployments in any number of prior sources.

You wrote a whole post saying you understand the need for a setting with necessary imaginative leeway and then in the last two lines you've essentially said "Also I want retcons". I don't get it.

No? I said “Also I want to know when something is jarring”.

it’s a little weird to have not seen towering over battlefields, visible from dozens of miles away, in any number of deployments in any number of prior sources.

The reason we don't have fluff detailing people's experiences seeing this towering over battlefields, visible for miles around, and we don't have it from umpteen different verified sources at different times is because this model didn't exist in our universe, so the writers didn't write about it in the 40K universe. Now, I know you know this, you aren't delusional or psychotic. A real world explanation of this isn't what you're asking for in order to make this feel less jarring to you. What you want is an "in-universe" explanation as to why we don't have fluff of this guy towering over dozens of battlefields throughout the timeline. You want a "This titan is super rare guyz" or "some crazy techie just rediscovered the blueprints for this and they're cranking them out again". In essence, you want a retcon (or at least you want story mode as opposed to setting) is what you wrote there, whether you know it or not, either that or I'm just misunderstanding you entirely but I've read it several times and it really seems like you want some in-universe fluff to make this less jarring for you.

**zedmeister**

Just realised that the two defensive guns either side of the head are battle cannons. They follow the design here:

https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-GB/Death-Korps-of-Krieg-Mars-Alpha-Pattern-Leman-Russ-with-Modified-Ryza-Pattern-Turret

So you may get some extra shots that aren’t just ardex style everyone in 3” gets hit...

**Yodhrin**

changemod wrote:
Yodhrin wrote:
changemod wrote:
Inserting new titans is a little confusing from a lore perspective though, purely in the sense that we do know variants have been hovering around in the vague conceptual aether for a long time, but what I want to know is some hard info on comparative rarity.

Have we been largely only seeing four Titan types all these years because the warbringer and warmonger are far, far rarer, or are we just to shut up and accept a retcon that these were just off screen in hundreds of sources talking about titans in action?

Ugh - conceptualizing the addition of new stuff as "retcons" is how we ended up with nu40K and AoS where everything they add to the games is brand-new and plot advancing, and the whole thing just becomes an endless treadmill where a cool addition only seems to exist with any focus for a brief moment before the next dozen new things have come along and the cool thing is barely mentioned again(because why would they, if you were going to buy it you would have at the time, and now they want you to buy the new thing).

The framing for the setting was supposed to be the idea of an ever-expanding window - we could see into this other world, but only part of it, and only the bits within the field of view that were in focus. When they "added" "new" things they were simply revealing parts of the setting that had always been there. Of course, you can cock up with that concept just as easily as with any other, but in principle it works perfectly fine.

As to Senor Chonkus - I like it a lot. I'd absolutely love it if it were more in the Warbringer/Warlord size range, but they've brought that old Jes concept sketch into the modern design language pretty flawlessly IMO. Whether I buy one or not...eh. I'd have to rewrite my fluff as I've said before, and planning & executing a couple of organ harvesting murders to fund the thing is a lot of effort...

As I was Trying to communicate, a fifth (or sixth) “common” Titan pattern would be a change on an extremely large scale that’s kinda weird in context of existing fiction. You kinda notice when a Warhound walks past way more than you notice that “oh gosh, some of those marines had gravity guns this whole time!”

You’re the second person who’s gone “Ugh it’s a setting not a story”, and frankly I agree? Of course treating 40k as if it’s one big story is how we get incoherent gibberish like Abaddon cutting the entire galaxy in half. And that’s the angle I was coming from because I am concerned with sufficiently large breaches of setting consistency as to take me out of things for a moment.

So yeah, I was wanting to know if this never before seen Titan type was an infrequent anomaly or a semi common mainline unit that it’s a little weird to have not seen towering over battlefields, visible from dozens of miles away, in any number of deployments in any number of prior sources.

Fair enough, apologies for misunderstanding you.

I expect the line they'll take is that these "intermediate" engines are fairly commonplace during the Crusade/Heresy era, but become very uncommon and even rare afterwards. There are enough engine conflicts during the Heresy that the fact they haven't "focused" on these newer ones before now can be excused, and a lot of pre-Heresy tech vanishes entirely or turns into priceless relics even just a couple of thousand years later, so by the time we get to most of the other non-Heresy engine conflicts we've seen before they'll probably end up being things most Legios have one or two of if any at all.

That said, I would agree that they're going to have to stop pretty soon unless they want it to start getting a bit ridiculous, in lore terms or otherwise. The Imperator - which I suppose is inevitable now given the size of this chap - plus the Rapier gives seven "basic" chassis, I think that's probably enough especially given potential for variants(non-Nemesis Warbringers, for ex). Beyond that any Imperial designs should be hyper specialist engines that were always rare, IMO, and they should crack on with Chaos versions of the existing engines(TBH, they should probably do them sooner rather than later, so they still have one or two Imperial releases in the pipeline for later).

**changemod**

JWBS wrote:
changemod wrote:
JWBS wrote:
changemod wrote:

So yeah, I was wanting to know if this never before seen Titan type was an infrequent anomaly or a semi common mainline unit that it’s a little weird to have not seen towering over battlefields, visible from dozens of miles away, in any number of deployments in any number of prior sources.

You wrote a whole post saying you understand the need for a setting with necessary imaginative leeway and then in the last two lines you've essentially said "Also I want retcons". I don't get it.

No? I said “Also I want to know when something is jarring”.

it’s a little weird to have not seen towering over battlefields, visible from dozens of miles away, in any number of deployments in any number of prior sources.

The reason we don't have fluff detailing people's experiences seeing this towering over battlefields, visible for miles around, and we don't have it from umpteen different verified sources at different times is because this model didn't exist in our universe, so the writers didn't write about it in the 40K universe. Now, I know you know this, you aren't delusional or psychotic. A real world explanation of this isn't what you're asking for in order to make this feel less jarring to you. What you want is an "in-universe" explanation as to why we don't have fluff of this guy towering over dozens of battlefields throughout the timeline. You want a "This titan is super rare guyz" or "some crazy techie just rediscovered the blueprints for this and they're cranking them out again". In essence, you want a retcon, is what you wrote there, whether you know it or not, either that or I'm just misunderstanding you entirely but I've read it several times and it really seems like you want some in-universe fluff to make this less jarring for you.

Okay, you seem to not know what retcon actually means. A retcon is sliding something in without a clean and organic explanation that doesn’t change existing details. A retcon would be something with no explanation or an inadequate one.

Anyhow to be perfectly blunt I only really got into this in more detail because I was annoyed at two separate people assuming I was a “the universe is a single story” type rather than a “The universe is a setting in which innumerable stories can take place” type, and was kinda annoyed at that. Before that, I made a fairly simple point that I’d like to know how rare these new types are meant to be so I know if it’s a little weird that they’re showing up now or not. It’s not something I’m overly bothered with, and fully intend to buy this model at the first opportunity.

**MajorWesJanson**

Personally I find it easiest to just presume that Warmaster is the proper class name, and the occasional mentions of titans that are more powerful than a Warlord, like Imperius Volcanus, called the old Nemesis class like Revoka, or the siege titan Atranican are Warmaster hulls.

I'm more annoyed that the Warlord heavy plasma was called a plasma Annihilator, while the new larger one is the Destructor, when those used to be flipped.

**Arbitrator**

So are the Loyalist/Traitor books just compendium of the Legios releases across the various books thus far or are they completely new/both?

**Bellerophon**

Arbitrator wrote:
So are the Loyalist/Traitor books just compendium of the Legios releases across the various books thus far or are they completely new/both?

There's going to be at least some new in there - the Loyal Legions book has Legio Metalica on the cover, and they haven't had rules yet.

**Mendi Warrior**

MajorWesJanson wrote:I'm not actually sure if the Warmaster rules are going to be in the Loyalist legios book. It seems to be just a compilation of the Loyalist rules (hopefully they will include and reprint the loyalist strategems and titans of legend in there)

There's no mention of any new rules or maniples which would include this new beast (hopefully they call them heavy maniples, so Myrmadon gets some company. And Extermigus really should have been one)

Another potential is that the Heretic compendium will come out later alongside the Belicosa warbringer so that variant is released.

They mentioned the rules for the Warmaster will be available in the box on the command terminal, but I don't think they said anything about maniples including this beast. I guess we'll have more info this coming Tuesday when the Engine Kill article is released.

**MajorWesJanson**

Arbitrator wrote:
So are the Loyalist/Traitor books just compendium of the Legios releases across the various books thus far or are they completely new/both?

Says 16 Legios for loyalist, who currently have 15:

2.1.1 Legio Gryphonicus 'War Griffons'
2.1.2 Legio Astorum 'Warp Runners'
2.1.3 Legio Atarus 'Firebrands'
2.1.4 Legio Solaria 'Imperial Hunters'
2.1.5 Legio Defensor 'Nova Guard'
2.1.6 Legio Crucius 'Warmongers'
2.1.7 Legio Fortidus 'Dauntless'
2.1.8 Legio Praesagius 'The True Messengers'
2.1.9 Legio Oberon 'Death Bolts II'
2.1.10 Legio Lysanda 'Sentinels of the Edge'
2.1.11 Legio Osedax 'Cockatrices'
2.1.12 Legio Honourum 'Death Bolts'
2.1.13 Legio Ignatum 'Fire Wasps'
2.1.14 Legio Venator 'Iron Spiders'
2.1.15 Legio Astraman 'Morning Stars'

They could be including Legio Tritonis 'Dark Tide' though as a Blackshield legio.

If not, the cover shows a Legio Metalica titan, which doesnt have rules yet and would make 16.

Knight houses, Loyalists have
Donar
Indra
Kaska
Kaushik
Mamaragon
Tazkhar
Orhlacc
Vornherr
Vyronii
Sidus
Taranis
Zavora
Col'khak
Moritain
which looks like 14, but the blurb only lists 12.

**SamusDrake**

Herman Munster titan ahoy!!!

Not my cup of tea( way too big ) but it will breath new life into the game.

Same time next year lads?

**JWBS**

changemod wrote:
JWBS wrote:
changemod wrote:
JWBS wrote:
changemod wrote:

So yeah, I was wanting to know if this never before seen Titan type was an infrequent anomaly or a semi common mainline unit that it’s a little weird to have not seen towering over battlefields, visible from dozens of miles away, in any number of deployments in any number of prior sources.

You wrote a whole post saying you understand the need for a setting with necessary imaginative leeway and then in the last two lines you've essentially said "Also I want retcons". I don't get it.

No? I said “Also I want to know when something is jarring”.

it’s a little weird to have not seen towering over battlefields, visible from dozens of miles away, in any number of deployments in any number of prior sources.

The reason we don't have fluff detailing people's experiences seeing this towering over battlefields, visible for miles around, and we don't have it from umpteen different verified sources at different times is because this model didn't exist in our universe, so the writers didn't write about it in the 40K universe. Now, I know you know this, you aren't delusional or psychotic. A real world explanation of this isn't what you're asking for in order to make this feel less jarring to you. What you want is an "in-universe" explanation as to why we don't have fluff of this guy towering over dozens of battlefields throughout the timeline. You want a "This titan is super rare guyz" or "some crazy techie just rediscovered the blueprints for this and they're cranking them out again". In essence, you want a retcon, is what you wrote there, whether you know it or not, either that or I'm just misunderstanding you entirely but I've read it several times and it really seems like you want some in-universe fluff to make this less jarring for you.

Okay, you seem to not know what retcon actually means. A retcon is sliding something in without a clean and organic explanation that doesn’t change existing details. A retcon would be something with no explanation or an inadequate one.

Anyhow to be perfectly blunt I only really got into this in more detail because I was annoyed at two separate people assuming I was a “the universe is a single story” type rather than a “The universe is a setting in which innumerable stories can take place” type, and was kinda annoyed at that. Before that, I made a fairly simple point that I’d like to know how rare these new types are meant to be so I know if it’s a little weird that they’re showing up now or not. It’s not something I’m overly bothered with, and fully intend to buy this model at the first opportunity.

Yeah I know, I realised after I typed that that I had veered off into setting/story vs retcon (retcon has various different definitions btw, the basic google definition being "a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events,..", quite vague and also allowing for the presentation of information). Anyway, I hope we don't see any type of "These are super rare now" exposition because frankly I'm sick of that particular one being used in this setting. I'd honestly prefer they just act like these have always been a thing and just skip the "Now, you may be wondering why we're only just seeing this titan. Well, let me tell you (funny story actually), these are quite rare, as it happens..." thing they often do in these situations.

**Patriarch**

Dysartes wrote:
Did they say what the silver think on the right shin guard (as we look at the screen) is?

I know the scale is off, but it makes be think of a massive incense burner...

Brutal-looking machine, though - how tall do y'all think it'll be, aside from the AA guns?

At the time of the original sketch, that would be a multiple rocket launcher.

**Crablezworth**

I really wish they could have shown it off with different arms or least one different arm. The plasmas just seem a bit silly.

**StarFyre**

i imagine the forgeworld 40K warmaster will be 30-36 inches tall...

I still like the scale of the warlords at warhammer world in the UK. fits better to the art...

SF

**Crablezworth**

The head that's previewed on the book cover at least looks the best of the one's shown so far. The one's they're showing just look way too much like this thing, I feel like, like with the warbringer's head, changing that can do a lot to make the model look better overall. I also want to see more of the top and back to see if there's place to glue 6mm servitors and techpriests.

**changemod**

Crablezworth wrote:
The head that's previewed on the book cover at least looks the best of the one's shown so far. The one's they're showing just look way too much like this thing, I feel like, like with the warbringer's head, changing that can do a lot to make the model look better overall. I also want to see more of the top and back to see if there's place to glue 6mm servitors and techpriests.

“Way too much like” as if the elongated crusader helmet isn’t one of the best damn heads I’ve seen on an imperial walker.

**Tavis75**

jeff white wrote:
Tavis75 wrote:
I so hope they do a 40k scale version as I think there could be some really nice details tucked away in that body, so much stuff going on! Though admittedly, the price is likely to be horrific, could imagine it easily hitting the £2k mark!

How big would that be...?

Based on the size comparison image, about 24.5 inches (My Warlord is approx 17.75 to the top edge of carapace armour, not including the guns and reactors, though obviously will vary slightly depending on the leg positioning), so it’s not ridiculous. On Facebook the comment from FW was “That would be a huge kit, but who knows what the future may hold.” Which makes it sound fairly likely!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

MajorWesJanson wrote:
Tavis75 wrote:
I so hope they do a 40k scale version as I think there could be some really nice details tucked away in that body, so much stuff going on! Though admittedly, the price is likely to be horrific, could imagine it easily hitting the £2k mark!

Just looking again at the point defence weapons in the chest, just assumed they were lascannons, but looking closely, they actually appear to be battlecannons!

I hope not in 40k scale for a while. My custom cabinet just fits a warlord, this monster would be too big. And looking at the legs, they look to include some of the most annoying elements of the Reaver and Warbringer, plus the new internal supports. Wonder if it has a rear patio like the warlord?

I reckon it will have a patio, could be wrong but I reckon there might be a platform right around the middle just above the stabilisers, the armour there even looks to have crenellations, and seems there is space for a flat open area.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dysartes wrote:
Did they say what the silver think on the right shin guard (as we look at the screen) is?

I know the scale is off, but it makes be think of a massive incense burner...

In the original concept art I assumed it was a missile launcher of some sort, as the design matches the arm missile launcher, so I imagine something like that, missiles or grenades for clearing ground troops.

**Breotan**

SamusDrake wrote:
Herman Munster titan ahoy!!!

Not my cup of tea( way too big ) but it will breath new life into the game.

So would Chaos, Ork, and Eldar titans. Just saying.

**Iracundus**

Breotan wrote:
SamusDrake wrote:
Herman Munster titan ahoy!!!

Not my cup of tea( way too big ) but it will breath new life into the game.

So would Chaos, Ork, and Eldar titans. Just saying.

Agreed. Adding more and more Imperial (and non-mutated Chaos) Titans is just like Marine bloat. I am still waiting for Eldar and Orks. At least games like BFG made an attempt to include those factions from the beginning.
Otherwise it's a bit "meh" from me and wallet stays closed.

**Overread**

AT I think needs to step into the Chaos line of corrupted titans at the very least. It would be a huge thing for the game to get some chaos titan models and at least shows GW are confident in the game beyond the Imperial fanbase.

What's interesting is that AN already has a lot of xenos to start with and they've even made some xenos ground assets so clearly someone at FW likes Xenos (even if its mostly Tau

).

I'd love to see Tyranids in AT, but I know they will likely be one of the latter forces to get added.

The only bonus is that because titans basically don't change through the ages they can just advance the storyline and all the Imperial titans remain valid. I'd just like to see Chaos and Xenos get a look in before the game has 50 different knights and 30 different titans for the Imperials alone

**Iracundus**

Overread wrote:
AT I think needs to step into the Chaos line of corrupted titans at the very least. It would be a huge thing for the game to get some chaos titan models and at least shows GW are confident in the game beyond the Imperial fanbase.

What's interesting is that AN already has a lot of xenos to start with and they've even made some xenos ground assets so clearly someone at FW likes Xenos (even if its mostly Tau ).

I'd love to see Tyranids in AT, but I know they will likely be one of the latter forces to get added.

The only bonus is that because titans basically don't change through the ages they can just advance the storyline and all the Imperial titans remain valid. I'd just like to see Chaos and Xenos get a look in before the game has 50 different knights and 30 different titans for the Imperials alone

Tyranid Bio-Titans would allow Pacific Rim Kaijiu vs. Jaeger fights.

GW needs to expand back the range of Tyranid weapons from what they had in Epic though as FW's interpretation of Tyranid Titans reduced them to just basically Scything Talons and the generic Bio-Cannon.

**SamusDrake**

Overread wrote:
AT I think needs to step into the Chaos line of corrupted titans at the very least. It would be a huge thing for the game to get some chaos titan models and at least shows GW are confident in the game beyond the Imperial fanbase.

Have courage my friend as Defence of Ryza mentions that corrupted titans and renegade knight banners will be covered in future supplements.

**Fraggle**

Im tempted to model a landing pad on the top to act as a spotter pad - maybe for an Arvus or something depending on space.

**Overread**

Iracundus wrote:
Overread wrote:
AT I think needs to step into the Chaos line of corrupted titans at the very least. It would be a huge thing for the game to get some chaos titan models and at least shows GW are confident in the game beyond the Imperial fanbase.

What's interesting is that AN already has a lot of xenos to start with and they've even made some xenos ground assets so clearly someone at FW likes Xenos (even if its mostly Tau ).

I'd love to see Tyranids in AT, but I know they will likely be one of the latter forces to get added.

The only bonus is that because titans basically don't change through the ages they can just advance the storyline and all the Imperial titans remain valid. I'd just like to see Chaos and Xenos get a look in before the game has 50 different knights and 30 different titans for the Imperials alone

Tyranid Bio-Titans would allow Pacific Rim Kaijiu vs. Jaeger fights.

GW needs to expand back the range of Tyranid weapons from what they had in Epic though as FW's interpretation of Tyranid Titans reduced them to just basically Scything Talons and the generic Bio-Cannon.

In fairness the only reason Tyranids don't have more titan models is because every time Epic got going it died off before giving Tyranids much and the Imperials got bloated lines because of the long AT and Titan Legions games of old. Meanwhile big titan models were always slower FW sellers and Tyranids just don't have enough market buying to make them want to make dozens of different super-sized titan models and weapons so yeah I can see why weapons and options got limited. Orks and Eldar have the same situation even though both have every reason to have extensive titan models and weapon options.

Basically there's no lore barrier against Xenos having as many diverse titan types as Imperials. The only downside of leaving them out of the game for so long is that when they do come along their lines will likely look less interesting purely from a variety point when compared to a fully fleshed out Imperial model line.

**Flinty**

Fraggle wrote:
Im tempted to model a landing pad on the top to act as a spotter pad - maybe for an Arvus or something depending on space.

Classically, land.speeders were used for that role

**SamusDrake**

Breotan wrote:

So would Chaos, Ork, and Eldar titans. Just saying.

Indeed!

Chaos is definitely in the works, but for now I would forget about the xenos. Unless Orks and Eldar had a notable role in the Horus Heresy era, I doubt we'll see them in Adeptus Titanicus.

That said, the rule book( pg 17 ) mentions the Balthor Sigma Intervention, where the World Eaters are supported by super heavies and an attack by "xenos titan analogues" which are determined to be Eldar...

**Overread**

Thing is AT can just advance its storyline to any point; the Imperial titans won't change visually nor design wise. They are timeless machines essentially in the setting.

Orks and Eldar certainly have limited appearances during the Horus Heresy period whilst Tyranids, Dark Eldar and Tau and such don't appear or come on the scene in a big way until much later in the setting.

**GoatboyBeta**

So thinking about the Loyalist and later Traitor Legio books. What are the chances of a third book for maniples and missions? Or will GW keep them as a selling point for the campaign books?

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Speculation.

The two Titans added to the range both feature numerous point defence weapons, both Ardex Defensor, and those funky AA carapace weapons.

I’m not at all convinced these are just Rule of Cool. Rather I’m thinking they’re being added with some thought toward Epic?