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.

JWBS wrote:
I was reading the new book and noticed there's no Tempestus, seems strange to not have them in this book since the Traitor book will presumably have Tempestor idk where Tempestus are supposed to be in that case.

I think only ignatum stayed loyalist, tempestus and mortis went traitor

 Crablezworth wrote:

JWBS wrote:
I was reading the new book and noticed there's no Tempestus, seems strange to not have them in this book since the Traitor book will presumably have Tempestor idk where Tempestus are supposed to be in that case.

I think only ignatum stayed loyalist, tempestus and mortis went traitor

Some of Tempestus went traitor, some stayed loyal, IIRC.

Tempestus still stands as a loyalist legio, and the traitorous element of Tempestus is now known as Tempestor. GW sells a transfer sheet for Tempestus and they describe them in terms that indicate they're loyalist, so it's not like they've been forgotten about, leaving them out of this book is like deciding to skip the entries for Ignatum or Mortis.

I think that Mortis went over wholesale and the Tempestus leadership took most of the Legio with them into treachery and heresy, but there were some maniples and individual Tempestus Titans that remained loyal to the Emperor.
So you’ll probably find Tempestus in the Traitor Legios book. Those guys might “now” be known as Tempestus and the traitors as Tempestor but the game is set during the Heresy, when all this was still shaking out.

Not that there’s anything preventing you taking Tempestus rules for a Loyalist battle group; you just can’t take stratagems and Titans expressly listed as traitor-only.

.

Other printing issues noticed:

Ah GW and their impeccable quality control.

What?

 lord_blackfang wrote:
What?

What?

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
What?

What?

What exactly is the printing issue. I don't see anything wrong with the photo, other than it wasn't photographed flat.

(edit) Oh, I see, its double layered. Too me a long time to figure it out.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Other printing issues noticed:

Sometimes its this kind of silliness that makes me want to ditch Titanicus.

The Astorum Warlord a few pages earlier has the same loadout and appears to be the one behind the Atarus Warlord.

You can see the double image throughout the whole picture.

JWBS wrote:
I was reading the new book and noticed there's no Tempestus, seems strange to not have them in this book since the Traitor book will presumably have Tempestor idk where Tempestus are supposed to be in that case.

They'll be in the Traitor book as Legio Tempestus. Per HH: Conquest, "Legio Tempestor" is only used in some post-008.M31 archives. There's been no concrete distinction between the two in decades.

Tempestus was meant to be a Traitor Legion far before it was given a Loyalist element, so it's only appropriate. The opposite side of the coin is Metalica, for example, who only appear in the Loyalist book but historically have a strong Traitor element (see e.g. Codex: Eye of Terror).

As far as I know before they introduced the allegiances in the ryza book, it's my belief you could play a lot of the legios as either loyalist or traitor but would have to decide for purposes of stratagems, could be mistaken however. Now I'm not sure because of the loyalist/traitor/blackshield stuff introduced in ryza that may not be the case.

 Crablezworth wrote:
As far as I know before they introduced the allegiances in the ryza book, it's my belief you could play a lot of the legios as either loyalist or traitor but would have to decide for purposes of stratagems, could be mistaken however. Now I'm not sure because of the loyalist/traitor/blackshield stuff introduced in ryza that may not be the case.

You still can. Per the Loyalist book:

The Titan Legions and Knight Households presented in this book are those that were predominantly loyal to the Emperor. As such, only three allegiances are presented below: Loyalist
Titan Legion (available to a Legio battlegroup) and Questoris Imperialis or Questoris Mechanicum allegiance (both available to a Knight Household battlegroup). If players wish to use Legio or Household rules presented in this book with other allegiances presented elsewhere, they are welcome to do so, so long as they clearly inform their opponents before a game begins.

Was just explaining, lorewise, why Tempestus would show up in the Traitor book and not the Loyalist one, why Metalica would show up in the Loyalist book and not the Traitor book, etc

Ah cool, thanks for posting the reference to the latest book, good to konw that still works. Did the split off from mortis get a new name too or just tempestus?

 Crablezworth wrote:
Ah cool, thanks for posting the reference to the latest book, good to konw that still works. Did the split off from mortis get a new name too or just tempestus?

By Mortis you mean Metalica? No, the Traitor portion is still just Legio Metalica/Iron Skulls. The Tempestus/Tempestor one isn't clear cut. There wasn't a Legio Tempestus that split into a Legio Tempestus and a Legio Tempestor: there was a single Legio Tempestus that is sometimes called Tempestus and sometimes called Tempestor (both Loyalist & Traitor). Per the latest lore, which I referenced above, Tempestor is just a label attributed to the Legion occasionally post-008.M31. People often think that the Traitor portion is meant to be Tempestor and the Loyalist portion is meant to be Tempestus but that's incorrect. Either way, the Storm Lords were introduced as/primarily intended to be Traitors.

Wasn't the new Tempestus' schtick that they were created from scratch as a new legio in honour of the loyalist Tempestus group that died on Mars?

Nope, they were not created from scratch. Again, Conquest makes this clear - the world that Tempestus/Tempestor inhabit on 40k (per the novel Titanicus), Orestes, was one of Tempestus' domains during the GC/HH (as was Estaban III, which was the Traitor Stormlords' base), and we know that there were some loyalists who survived by virtue of not being on Mars.

 Crablezworth wrote:
I think those are all fine points when it comes to summary tables. I still think nothing beats having the people who write on it also play it. This has been a sore point with gw's engine kill articles, there have been errors you know simply wouldn't occur with someone who has even a cursory experience with the game. The article about the new volkite weapons comes to mind where they had to fix most of the article because the author wrote it all with a misunderstanding of voidbraker's mechanics. ...

I'm happy they got an faq out so fast but honestly they suck at writing stratagems. They've decided to use each and any interchangeably when describing stratagem use but also want us to instinctively know any means "once per game" and each means "every turn", and they're basically synonyms without more context. All of this added to the fact that they clearly know how to write a sentence like "once per game" but have chosen to only do so sparingly for no reason. This book was a chance to rectify and fix that, it didn't. Like others have pointed out the fluff takes a hit to with them constantly switching between the terms class and type to where it's obvious even they don't know which one they're referring to either.

Good point about the Engine Kill articles. Marketing and Communications strikes again. "Go promote this and pretend you're an Enthusiast!" "Well, it's a living..."

However, when it comes to the AT rules themselves--such as the strategems--we have the opposite problem: the language is vague and confusing because the writers play the game. They know what they mean when they say 'any phase' and don't realise that readers may not get it.

This sort of thing happens all the time, in every type of writing. In such a case it's useful to have editors and proofreaders who aren't familiar with the material--just like a newcomer to the subject or the game. They should be asking the dumb questions like, "I'm confused--what do you mean by 'any'?" The writers inevitably say, "Huh? We thought that was obvious..." but if it's not obvious to the editor or beta reader, it probably won't be to the actual intended market either.

(For an example of the hilarity that happens when the rules writer knows what they mean and assumes everyone else does too, look up the old Deathblow rule for the original Warhammer Quest. People are still arguing about it a quarter of a century later.)

Of course there's also been a different problem since the core AT rules designer left. Later rules writers apparently didn't quite know what they were doing when adding extra stuff to AT. I very much doubt the Acastus rules were devised while Hewitt was still there. I'm cautiously optimistic that they've got a better handle on things now, though.

On a related note, I wish they'd put the points value for each Titan Upgrade in bold as part of the upgrade name, rather than burying it in the first sentence. They don't seem to have quite settled on whether to call it 'Wargear' or 'Upgrades' either. Ugh, I hate seeing fancy expensive hardback full-colour books produced with shoddy proofreading. It besmirches the honour of the Legio Biblos, it does.

 Cruentus wrote:


(edit) Oh, I see, its double layered. Too me a long time to figure it out.

I knew we shouldn't trust Astorum! Sneaky ninjas. Never trust anyone with 'Warp' in their name (or if you can't see where it keeps its brain, as Mrs Weasley would say).

Zenithfleet wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
I think those are all fine points when it comes to summary tables. I still think nothing beats having the people who write on it also play it. This has been a sore point with gw's engine kill articles, there have been errors you know simply wouldn't occur with someone who has even a cursory experience with the game. The article about the new volkite weapons comes to mind where they had to fix most of the article because the author wrote it all with a misunderstanding of voidbraker's mechanics. ...

I'm happy they got an faq out so fast but honestly they suck at writing stratagems. They've decided to use each and any interchangeably when describing stratagem use but also want us to instinctively know any means "once per game" and each means "every turn", and they're basically synonyms without more context. All of this added to the fact that they clearly know how to write a sentence like "once per game" but have chosen to only do so sparingly for no reason. This book was a chance to rectify and fix that, it didn't. Like others have pointed out the fluff takes a hit to with them constantly switching between the terms class and type to where it's obvious even they don't know which one they're referring to either.

Good point about the Engine Kill articles. Marketing and Communications strikes again. "Go promote this and pretend you're an Enthusiast!" "Well, it's a living..."

However, when it comes to the AT rules themselves--such as the strategems--we have the opposite problem: the language is vague and confusing because the writers play the game. They know what they mean when they say 'any phase' and don't realise that readers may not get it.

This sort of thing happens all the time, in every type of writing. In such a case it's useful to have editors and proofreaders who aren't familiar with the material--just like a newcomer to the subject or the game. They should be asking the dumb questions like, "I'm confused--what do you mean by 'any'?" The writers inevitably say, "Huh? We thought that was obvious..." but if it's not obvious to the editor or beta reader, it probably won't be to the actual intended market either.

(For an example of the hilarity that happens when the rules writer knows what they mean and assumes everyone else does too, look up the old Deathblow rule for the original Warhammer Quest. People are still arguing about it a quarter of a century later.)

Of course there's also been a different problem since the core AT rules designer left. Later rules writers apparently didn't quite know what they were doing when adding extra stuff to AT. I very much doubt the Acastus rules were devised while Hewitt was still there. I'm cautiously optimistic that they've got a better handle on things now, though.

On a related note, I wish they'd put the points value for each Titan Upgrade in bold as part of the upgrade name, rather than burying it in the first sentence. They don't seem to have quite settled on whether to call it 'Wargear' or 'Upgrades' either. Ugh, I hate seeing fancy expensive hardback full-colour books produced with shoddy proofreading. It besmirches the honour of the Legio Biblos, it does.

 Cruentus wrote:


(edit) Oh, I see, its double layered. Too me a long time to figure it out.

I knew we shouldn't trust Astorum! Sneaky ninjas. Never trust anyone with 'Warp' in their name (or if you can't see where it keeps its brain, as Mrs Weasley would say).

Well ya they had a chance to do some house cleaning here but are also sorta held back by the other books. For one, there's a whole class of stratagems that work more like upgrades/wargear and are generally assigned to a titan in the strat phase turn one, which would be redundent if they just made them wargear and limited the access or amount you can buy it.

You're right about the engine war articles, it seems odd they couldn't find one person to write copy who also plays titanicus. I've said before, they could easily contract out to passionate people, give the goonhammer guys a monthly contract to write engine war articles for gw, they already knock it out of the park.

What's extra funny is they could have fixed voidbraker to work like they thought it did, which would actually make it worth taking, but they faq'd it to work exactly as it does.

Tempestor are probably being saved for the Traitor book just because they were the 'original' Traitor Legio in the rulebook.

I'm interested in seeing how their colour scheme is depicted. If I recall the pictures we have of it (the three-tone blue camo) come from Imperial Armour and they've never been shown with new/updated Titanicus art.

 Arbitrator wrote:
Tempestor are probably being saved for the Traitor book just because they were the 'original' Traitor Legio in the rulebook.

I'm interested in seeing how their colour scheme is depicted. If I recall the pictures we have of it (the three-tone blue camo) come from Imperial Armour and they've never been shown with new/updated Titanicus art.

The art we have for Tempestus comes from Conquest, one of the HH black books. You're correct that we haven't received any art since then though.

Belicosa Volcano Cannon coming for the Warbringer next week.

Sadly it’s resin, rather than an upgrade sprue.

Surprise Warbringer Volcano Cannon!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Belicosa Volcano Cannon coming for the Warbringer next week.

Sadly it’s resin, rather than an upgrade sprue.

Boo, resin instead of a proper alt sprue. We are still missing the melta and gatling arms and Mars delta head. On the plus side, they could still do a plastic sprue with those and a more interesting carapace mount, like the new warlord volkite or a sonic disruptor.

Was expecting it in resin, but still a bit of a disappointment. Oh well!

Meh, if I wanted resin I could print it myself.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Sadly it’s resin, rather than an upgrade sprue.

Wonder if it's just the gun, or if they've bothered to do the ammo racks as well.

 Marshal Loss wrote:
Was expecting it in resin, but still a bit of a disappointment. Oh well!

Just get this one then: https://vanguardminiatures.co.uk/shop/heavy-ordnance-energy-cannon/

I guess they had way too much to reveal this week that they couldn’t have shown this off.