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.

Tastyfish wrote:
Minus the base, that doesn't seem that far out of scale for classic epic - original knights were about normal 40K figure sized, and give a mm or so I could see an epic marine coming up to the top of their greaves.

I know titans kind of were always their own scale in Epic, separate from vehicles (who were separate from infantry for the most part), but they don't seem that far out.

Yeah, apart from the obvious increase in detail, the new Knights look nearly the same scale as my old ones, considering the old ones are about the size of Space Marines with 25mm bases.

Lots of great pics and info in the Adeptus Titanicus 2017 Facebook group, here's a link for mobile:

https://m.facebook.com/groups/1438572432880002

I was a little concerned (panicky?) at first about the lack of Warhounds. Good to hear they’re on the way too. Gonna need a lot of them.

Legio Audax FTW !

 RiTides wrote:
Lots of great pics and info in the Adeptus Titanicus 2017 Facebook group, here's a link for mobile:

https://m.facebook.com/groups/1438572432880002

Wowza, I honestly don't know if I can drink the amount of kool-aid those community rules require without bursting. Posting the images here for us evil horrible "negative" people would be appreciated.

It's mostly the same as what's seen here just easier to view on mobile . I think I was accepted in just a few seconds, and didn't even read the rules

What is this? 40k for ANTS?



Seriously though, I've been waiting for this since GW abandoned Epic Armageddon. I'm really suprised they're releasing it this year, though. That seems like a really agressive release schedule given everything else GW is producing as well.

Has the official teaser been posted yet?





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Has the official teaser been posted yet?

AFK all day, come back and THIS?!?! OMFGOMFGOMFG!!

WARLORDS look great. Not a Reaver fan. My favourite titans are Warhounds and they're coming too!
And the terrain looks fantastic. REALLY good.

As much of this stuff as I can afford, and vehicles & troops from Vanguard. Happy dance time

My body is ready.

What's wrong with the Reavers? I hear some people say they don't like them but why?

I'm wondering if the Grand Master box will be worth its coin. Judging by GWs boxed sets lately, it will be. By a fair margin even. But then you'll want some Reavers and Warhounds to round out your maniples and then how much are you buying in for?

 General Helstrom wrote:
My body is ready.

What's wrong with the Reavers? I hear some people say they don't like them but why?

I'm wondering if the Grand Master box will be worth its coin. Judging by GWs boxed sets lately, it will be. By a fair margin even. But then you'll want some Reavers and Warhounds to round out your maniples and then how much are you buying in for?

Reavers are all ancient relics, the pinnacle of a Titan efficiency, and, as is typical in the Imperium, a Lost Arte. Which means they all date back to the utilitarian days of the Mechanicum before they were a religious order, so they simply lack the devotional flourishes that make the other Titan classes into art objects.
Some people don’t like this or feel it doesn’t fit with the general aesthetic, to which I say, respectively: that is your right, and of course not; that’s the point.

Have we been told what pattern of Warhound we're getting? I'm assuming it's Mars to go with the rest of the line?

I'm really loving these models, though to be honest, I was hoping the scale was a bit smaller. I was looking forward to a game I could play on a three by three and not did a dedicated carrying case for two miniatures (Warlords). All said, it looks very nice and I might give it a go.

I'm a huge Reaver fan (favourite Titan) because I don't much care for the look of the Warlord. I would have much preferred to see the big mega-box consist of:

2x Reavers
2x Wolfhounds
6x Knights

Feel like you could get more play and more scenarios out of that than including the actual Warlords. I'm not sure I'll buy into AT, but I do like the buildings and may use the plastic titans for classic Epic, etc.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Chopstick wrote:
Look like knight won't have carapace weapons.

That make a knight-only army tough.

Look again. Each Knight has a hole on top for carapace mounts.

There are indeed holes, but there are no carapace bit on the sprue, the kit also complete lack weapon part, There are only 1 for each weapon, except for the chainswords, and there no gauntlet.

I could see something like 12US$ upgrade sprue along the line. Ugh should've just bundled them into the knight kit (incease price or w/e) already.

The Reavers looks so dopey and clumsy - they were always, always my favorite titans, but this iteration draws way too heavily from the big forge world Reavers, not enough from the originals, I think. That Power-Mitten is gonna give me a fit.

I'm tentatively interested, just deeply wary of cost. I'm intrigued by the potential to need few models...but GW sometimes punishes that by making things brutally costly. And I really dislike anything that points me towards FW and their gold-laced resin.

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Have we been told what pattern of Warhound we're getting? I'm assuming it's Mars to go with the rest of the line?

I'd love to see the original design warhounds http://pro.bols.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/warhound-EPIC.jpg

Which were probably one of the better old designs. The Reavers look very old style and great and gives me hope that we might see an old style or even updated Imperator

The Reaver is just based on the current FW model.

Hanksingle wrote:
The Reavers looks so dopey and clumsy - they were always, always my favorite titans, but this iteration draws way too heavily from the big forge world Reavers, not enough from the originals, I think. That Power-Mitten is gonna give me a fit.

Agreed. Way too much influence from the ugly Forgeworld Reavers. Hopefully there will at least be some better looking alternate heads and pauldrons.

This looks so great!!!

Just got back from 'fest. Mark Bedford said when I spoke to him in the studio area that the big box cost would basically give you a Warlord for free.
Andy Hoare said they couldn't fit carapace weapons on the knight sprues, and they are jam packed. They'll follow in resin.
Magnet holes are pre-moulded. The joke is that they can sell you holes, but no magnets...

It seems a bit unreal that after all this time we will have the game in hand by August.

Did anyone else notice that cluster of what appears to be infantry models in the open bunker model? It's on the right side of the first image I linked to. Looks like about 19 infantry models arranged in 5 rows holding rifles, based on a circular or hexagonal base.

As far as I can tell from those photos, they're planning to release at least 5 versions of that bunker, there's a communication bunker, there's one with a turret akin to the Aquila Strongpoint, there's one with a generator (possibly a shield generator), one bunker with a round metal "lid", and finally the open bunker, with what I can only describe as infantry figures. I don't know what else they might represent or the purpose of the open bunker.

It could be a missile bunker and those are the warhead tops that we are seeing

I don't get the reaver hate. I think they're awesome.

 Floyd73 wrote:
I don't get the reaver hate. I think they're awesome.

Agreed, love them. Do they look about Contemptor size ish?

 Overread wrote:
It could be a missile bunker and those are the warhead tops that we are seeing

I think you could be right, that would explain the front row of three bumps, which don't look like infantrymen. So I guess five rows of 19 missiles (3,4,5,4,3).

Vorian wrote:

 Floyd73 wrote:
I don't get the reaver hate. I think they're awesome.

Agreed, love them. Do they look about Contemptor size ish?

They'll be bigger, notably so, if the images are anything to go by. I'm looking at a Contemptor next to an Imperial Knight in my cabinet, and for the Reaver to match up how it appears in the images next to the (apparently Knight sized) Warlord I'd think it needs to be 30-50% bigger (perspective and glass cabinets making it hard to judge completely.)

Personally, I've always disliked the 40K FW Reaver least because its hips appear too narrow and throws the proportions off, but it'll be much easier to hack an AT version about if that continues to be the case.

The warlord is smaller than a knight. So the teacher is about contemporary size

The Warlord isn't on an IK size oval then?

 McMagnus Mindbullets wrote:
The warlord is smaller than a knight. So the teacher is about contemporary size

I'm guessing this was a double auto-correct

(i.e. "The warlord is smaller than a knight. So the Reaver is about Contemptor size.")