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.

 Apologist wrote:
Size/shape of base: Base is likely 120mm x 90mm oval (same as the Dreadknight, Valkyrie etc.) It's definitely oval, as can be seen in the pictures in the opening post:

Spoiler:

Er, that pic makes them clearly look round? At least to me.

EDIT: ...or is it a very slight oval? I don't know anymore >_> Anyway, if it's not a 170mm round is good news for me

 KTG17 wrote:

How many of you bought 40k Knight vs Knight game? Where those two knights were included in a game? Did that product fly off the shelves? How different is that game from this version of AT if you are only going to have limited units that are so large that many of the weapon ranges look ridiculous? And if you think the games should only involve Titans? Why be excited about the Knights? They are really just more mobile tanks. If you can have Knights, you can certainly have Shadow Swords and Baneblades. And if you can have those, why stop there? Why would you limit a scale that so many people what to see to a system that is only playable with a few units?

I know this version is a nod to the original AT, but don't forget that rules for tanks and infantry for AT came out almost immediately after AT came out in White Dwarf. Just because they weren't in the box set doesn't mean that didn't have a plan for them. And considering what I have seen from GW newer White Dwarf model, I don't see that happening this time around.

Look, I love the original AT, but it isn't what blew the doors open for Epic. It was the introduction of infantry and vehicles. If GW DOESN'T come up with a plan to introduce infantry and vehicles to this scale, no one is going to be playing this game in a year. It will just join the shelves with the other one-off box sets.

And also about ATII. No one cared about ATII. I was heavy into Epic at the time and even playing Epic40k and on the EpicA playtesting team. No one cared about that system. Everyone's focus was on the combined arms of infantry, vehicles, and Titans, which is where it should be.

And the larger the model, and it looks like the new Warlord is more than twice the size of the original (even bigger than the Imperator), the more space it takes up on the board. This means either its going to be really slow, or to keep the game interesting, have a pretty liberal movement rate that I am sure is going to be combined with short weapon ranges, because few people are going to want a game where each side can pelt each other from across the table in the opening round. But at that size and scale, these models should. So they will be given really ridiculously short weapon ranges to encourage movement and flanking attacks. Its just going to be silly.

Its amazing that the original AT came with 6 warlords, so 3 models per side right out of the box, with a variety or ways to arm them. This one comes with two, and a few cannon fodder. I would rather have smaller models and more of them in the set. But I expect I will be the only one to feel this way, so everyone chime in and tell me I am wrong....

I fully agree with your post and sadly I think this will not be the return of Epic. One of the things that made Epic great was the tactical possibilities that you had especially in regards to movement. I don't know how this could work in any similar way with this new scale unless we now play on 12 feet by 6 feet boards. This hugely sized models generate exactly the problems you describe and while it may look good on pictures it is not sensible for gameplay. True, the original epic models where too small but there are fan-made true-scale versions for epic and they are way smaller than what we get here. I'm not sure they will ever come up with infantry etc. as it would basically create a competitor to 40k (which possibly should not have gotten all those over-sized tanks / knights / whatever in the first place) at a smaller scale. I fully expect that we will see some more titans and several sets of upgrade kits from FW but then the game goes the way of the dodo...

I am intrigued by them not showing off anything related to the Warhounds, it really does make me think that maybe there will be a new 28mm (plastic?) one, and they don't want to "spoil" the design until they are ready to release that.

Or is that the worst kind of wishful thinking?

 Slinky wrote:
I am intrigued by them not showing off anything related to the Warhounds, it really does make me think that maybe there will be a new 28mm (plastic?) one, and they don't want to "spoil" the design until they are ready to release that.

Or is that the worst kind of wishful thinking?

I read somewhere that they had to decide what to tool first and this was the reason why Warhounds will come later. Nothing about a new design, sorry.

Grimzim wrote:

 Slinky wrote:
I am intrigued by them not showing off anything related to the Warhounds, it really does make me think that maybe there will be a new 28mm (plastic?) one, and they don't want to "spoil" the design until they are ready to release that.

Or is that the worst kind of wishful thinking?

I read somewhere that they had to decide what to tool first and this was the reason why Warhounds will come later. Nothing about a new design, sorry.

This - during the Saturday of Warhammerfest someone (Battlebunnies?) indicated that Warhounds were the last to be prepared.

My guess is they also are the oldest and probably had less digital files prepared in advance.

 Slinky wrote:
I am intrigued by them not showing off anything related to the Warhounds, it really does make me think that maybe there will be a new 28mm (plastic?) one, and they don't want to "spoil" the design until they are ready to release that.

Or is that the worst kind of wishful thinking?

apparently they needed to manually input the details of the resin sculpt as there was no 3D model for it as it was hand sculpted, so it's going to be (largely) the same it's just taken a lot longer to do than the ones they could fiddle with digitally so it's going to be the last of the initial release plan to be finished, so I don't think there will be any major design changes

There should be no major changes from the original designs. The reaver and warhound both went through the same process since neither was available as CG before this project.

I spoke with the designer saturday morning and specifically fished for any connection to a new 28mm Warhound but (understandably) could not get a straight answer.

They did agree that both of the "smaller" titan classes needed replacement sooner rather than later, since they are far from the Warlords level of size, but arguably more difficult toassemble since the pieces are all slightly off.

So it seems this is something the studio would like to do, but we won't get to see it until they are ready to show us....

stormboy wrote:

Grimzim wrote:

 Slinky wrote:
I am intrigued by them not showing off anything related to the Warhounds, it really does make me think that maybe there will be a new 28mm (plastic?) one, and they don't want to "spoil" the design until they are ready to release that.

Or is that the worst kind of wishful thinking?

I read somewhere that they had to decide what to tool first and this was the reason why Warhounds will come later. Nothing about a new design, sorry.

This - during the Saturday of Warhammerfest someone (Battlebunnies?) indicated that Warhounds were the last to be prepared.

My guess is they also are the oldest and probably had less digital files prepared in advance.

According to a few attendees, the reason for the Warhound's absence is because the event fell outside that release's publicity window (think the release is supposed to be October?). They did have to put them through the process, but they're apparently done now. They just can't show them quite yet. I imagine they'll be on display at the July event.

Grimzim wrote:
I fully agree with your post and sadly I think this will not be the return of Epic. One of the things that made Epic great was the tactical possibilities that you had especially in regards to movement. I don't know how this could work in any similar way with this new scale unless we now play on 12 feet by 6 feet boards. This hugely sized models generate exactly the problems you describe and while it may look good on pictures it is not sensible for gameplay. True, the original epic models where too small but there are fan-made true-scale versions for epic and they are way smaller than what we get here. I'm not sure they will ever come up with infantry etc. as it would basically create a competitor to 40k (which possibly should not have gotten all those over-sized tanks / knights / whatever in the first place) at a smaller scale. I fully expect that we will see some more titans and several sets of upgrade kits from FW but then the game goes the way of the dodo...

Wow, wasn't expecting to read this, but thanks.

It really surprises me that even though we have an exact point in history when Epic was extremely popular, GW continues to pursue designs that are not popular with the gaming community or aren't going to be anywhere near as successful. The answers are right there in front of their noses, yet they just see to be ignorant of it or just don't care.

em_en_oh_pee wrote:

Crikey McJesus. I didn't realise the new models were that big.

So much for my plans to use them for Epic. They won't fit with my terrain. Dammit. Enthusiasm levels just fell off a cliff.

(Well, maybe the new Warlord could make a solid basis for an old Imperator...)

EDIT: And perhaps the new Knights could proxy as old Warlords. Hmm...

KTG17 wrote:
And also about ATII. No one cared about ATII. I was heavy into Epic at the time and even playing Epic40k and on the EpicA playtesting team. No one cared about that system. Everyone's focus was on the combined arms of infantry, vehicles, and Titans, which is where it should be.

Not sure whether this comment is directed at me, but for what it's worth... I can't judge the relative merits of the actual games because I wasn't into Epic back then. I only collected the magazines a few years ago.*

I can't help noticing, though, that the ATII rules featured in pretty much every issue of the old Epic mag. Someone must have cared about it. The designer(s), if not the Epic player base. Presumably it was somebody's pet project after it split off from combined-arms Epic. Not Jervis's, I suppose, since he was concentrating on Epic Armageddon's development. If there's some juicy behind-the-scenes gossip to be had, I'd love to hear it.

But then and now, there seem to be at least a few people out there who want to get back to basics (i.e. hot robot-on-robot action), and who see all the tanks and little men and so on as needless clutter. I'm not one of them, but I've seen the viewpoint expressed more than once.

Admittedly they tried to re-Titanicus-ify the Titans when Epic was the most streamlined and abstract it's ever been, so the whole attempt represented a serious clash of game design philosophies and it's no wonder they changed their minds. Reintroducing a version of Epic with a more detailed ruleset (E:A or whatever) might well mesh more easily with the new AT rules.

*I should add that I play Epic 40,000 these days and tracked down the old magazines for that reason... so I wasn't too impressed that half the content was about ATII (and the other half soon turned into E:A work in progress).

KTG17 wrote:
And the larger the model, and it looks like the new Warlord is more than twice the size of the original (even bigger than the Imperator), the more space it takes up on the board. This means either its going to be really slow, or to keep the game interesting, have a pretty liberal movement rate that I am sure is going to be combined with short weapon ranges, because few people are going to want a game where each side can pelt each other from across the table in the opening round. But at that size and scale, these models should. So they will be given really ridiculously short weapon ranges to encourage movement and flanking attacks. Its just going to be silly.

Well... I dunno. Battlefleet Gothic manages to have decent games with just two capital ships per side and no terrain whatsoever... and in rules terms they're basically Titans floating through space. Simplified Epic 40K-era Titans, at that. Obviously the game improves with more ships (the base game came with four per side), but if the new AT is 'naval engagements on land' and the Titans can't easily turn or reverse, I can see it working just fine.

I'd also be quite surprised if the game is meant to be played on a 2' by 2' board--I'd assume those boards were made unusually small because they're for display purposes--but please correct me on that if necessary.

And (to bring it up again) Epic 40K had artificially short weapons ranges in order to promote a game of movement and redeployment on a 6' x 4' table. Unrealistic, but it worked well in play. I understand this was changed in Epic Armageddon, though.

However... now that I've seen the sheer size of the models, I'm much more inclined to agree with your concerns about weapons ranges. There comes a point at which it does get silly.

Or they might just expect you to play with loads of terrain. And therefore sell loads of the spiffy new modular building kits.

KTG17 wrote:
Its amazing that the original AT came with 6 warlords, so 3 models per side right out of the box, with a variety or ways to arm them. This one comes with two, and a few cannon fodder. I would rather have smaller models and more of them in the set. But I expect I will be the only one to feel this way, so everyone chime in and tell me I am wrong....

100% agree with you on this point. I'm getting a strong impressive-display-model vibe at the expense of practical gaming. I guess GW is going for that 'luxury collector market' again...

 KTG17 wrote:

Wow, wasn't expecting to read this, but thanks.

It really surprises me that even though we have an exact point in history when Epic was extremely popular, GW continues to pursue designs that are not popular with the gaming community or aren't going to be anywhere near as successful. The answers are right there in front of their noses, yet they just see to be ignorant of it or just don't care.

I‘m not sure how well Epic really sold back at the time so I‘m unsure if it really was as successful as we think (or wish). I‘m also not sure who is still at the GW studio from back then or remembers (or researched) the reasons why old games like Epic are still played today and have a small community of dedicated followers and even some small companies doing new 6mm stuff. Personally I think that titans look much more impressive if you have infantry next to them as otherwise you have no good scale reference except maybe the buildings. Not to talk about the better gameplay of combined arms instead of a simple version of battletech.

And while I think GW improved quite a lot during the last years they definitely do not think about their old customers. For example, I own several Blood Bowl teams and would have bought the new edition would they not have changed the scale. Same with Necromunda and now the titans here. They revived beloved games of old but deliberately (or accidentally) made them so that old customers like me would not buy any of these games. All that said I‘m still curious how the new Adeptus Titanicus will turn out and how successful it will be.

I'm a bit confused by the claims that games workshop won't remake Epic because it would compete with 40k. The only way it would be a direct competitor is if it used the same ruleset, and even if it did take a few people completely away from 40k what's the big deal? the money still goes in gw's pocket! By this logic anything in the 40k universe that gw sells is a competitor to 40k?

I don't see it. I think gw like any company (and especially companies that have to please share holders) dislikes risk. And to release something like Epic without testing the waters is a very big risk! Its a commitment of cash and production time and resources that hinge on the hope that there is a sufficient fanbase to make it profitable. There's no external hype like with Lord of the Rings or the Hobbit (and remember even with those they started as stand alone scenarios from the film and could be left unsupported at any time) to support the release of a 3rd main game except the pc version and from what I hear GW pc games have never had much of an effect on sales.

I see Titanicus as GW's way of testing the waters, If they it does well I expect it to be slowly expanded, and if it does really well we might get Epic. If not it functions fine as a stand alone game and with luck at least covers its production costs.

 Sasquatch wrote:
I'm a bit confused by the claims that games workshop won't remake Epic because it would compete with 40k. The only way it would be a direct competitor is if it used the same ruleset, and even if it did take a few people completely away from 40k what's the big deal? the money still goes in gw's pocket! By this logic anything in the 40k universe that gw sells is a competitor to 40k?

I don't see it. I think gw like any company (and especially companies that have to please share holders) dislikes risk. And to release something like Epic without testing the waters is a very big risk! Its a commitment of cash and production time and resources that hinge on the hope that there is a sufficient fanbase to make it profitable. There's no external hype like with Lord of the Rings or the Hobbit (and remember even with those they started as stand alone scenarios from the film and could be left unsupported at any time) to support the release of a 3rd main game except the pc version and from what I hear GW pc games have never had much of an effect on sales.

I see Titanicus as GW's way of testing the waters, If they it does well I expect it to be slowly expanded, and if it does really well we might get Epic. If not it functions fine as a stand alone game and with luck at least covers its production costs.

This was just loud thinking from my side and based on the fact that back then lots of models would be available both for 40k as well as epic. You could (almost) have played 40k with the small scale figures. Of course with 6mm models this was no real valid option (even though there have been fan made versions for e.g. Space Hulk in 6mm) but with this new scale? Not so sure. If the infantry models are now more like 10mm or even 15mm it would be very valid to play 40k with the smaller scale. Why buy an expensive Knight or even Titan in 28mm scale when you can get them much cheaper in this smaller scale? Of course this could be total nonsense what I‘m talking so don’t take it to serious.

@Grimzim: I also dislike the scale. Because with it and a 4x4 table, you wont have real tactical manoeuvrability. It is just walk/hide and engage/don´t engage. You can already have this with 40k. It isn´t like naval or space combat, more like boxing in a ring. Also I see no destroyed building kits, so you propably won´t be able to rampage through a city.

But the reason for the scale is of caused by the prime motivation of GW: sell plastic and a lot of it. Gamewise a smaller scale would maybe be better, but bigger models bring bigger revenue.

Well, right now I only think that if I had wanted to play with knights (or knight sized stuff)... I would have bought knights.

These miss the mark for me by a lot.

Guys, the scale hasn't actually changed much, if at all, they just made the Titans the correct size for the scale this time.

And saying this is like buying Knights for 40K is just...odd. I mean, sure, big walking thingies, but they're entirely different games, the experience isn't even remotely similar.

Zenithfleet wrote:

Not sure whether this comment is directed at me, but for what it's worth... I can't judge the relative merits of the actual games because I wasn't into Epic back then. I only collected the magazines a few years ago.*

I can't help noticing, though, that the ATII rules featured in pretty much every issue of the old Epic mag. Someone must have cared about it. The designer(s), if not the Epic player base. Presumably it was somebody's pet project after it split off from combined-arms Epic. Not Jervis's, I suppose, since he was concentrating on Epic Armageddon's development. If there's some juicy behind-the-scenes gossip to be had, I'd love to hear it.

Well, Epic 40,000 magazine is funny because little of it is about Epic 40,000. It kind of went through an identity crisis. A lot of space was dedicated to not only ATII, but the on-going development of EpicA, neither of which, improved my Epic 40k experience. The funny part was that EpicA was being developed in real time online in the official Specialist Games forum for EpicA, so by the time most of those EpicA articles were in print, many of the printed rules were no longer in effect. Rules changes were being debated and changed daily.

Epic 40k was not popular among most veteran players. Despite being an interesting game itself (and it does have its faults), players loved SM2/TL, despite all of its faults. Epic 40k stuff was dirt cheap on ebay at the time (I picked up the core box set, unopened for $17 once), and I bought a lot of it. But Jervis believed in it and continued to try and push it when Fanatic/Specialist Games was formed, even releasing a rules only set called the Players Edition or something. But it still didn't pick up enough attention, so ATII was one of those things used to try and get players interested in the scale again. But even when the excitement rose when the development of EpicA was announced, people were split on the direction of it. Many of the veteran players didn't like it, while typically newer players did. Myself, I wasn't crazy about it, I had issues with not only the game itself but also things like the release schedule as so on, and I knew the game would not return Epic back to its glory. And the Specialist Games team just couldn't bring in the money to justify their existence so GW cut them. Epic 40,000 magazine was really an Epic magazine without a clear direction on what it exactly was supposed to be. It should have been about Epic 40,000, but just became a mess. In all honesty, the Firepower magazines are far better.

Grimzim wrote:
I‘m not sure how well Epic really sold back at the time so I‘m unsure if it really was as successful as we think (or wish).

Well, being one of the old guard myself, I remember those days. SM2/TL was hugely popular. And it wasn't just the number of players, but the scale of which games were played. I remember watching a game being played at a brick and mortar what had 6 gargants on one side, nevermind all the boyz and battlewagons around it. And the variety of minis that were produced is really impressive, even by today's standards. Most of my friends preferred Epic over 40k (2nd edition at the time).

Not saying you could just re-print Space Marine 2nd Edition as it was and expect it to fly off the shelves... it would need some updates, newer models. But the system was simple and very easy to introduce new players to. But it sets the goal post because AT/ SM1, Epic40k, nor EpicA weren't anywhere near as popular. There is something to be learned from that. They keep going in a new direction without seeming to understand what made Epic so exciting to begin with.

 Sasquatch wrote:
I see Titanicus as GW's way of testing the waters, If they it does well I expect it to be slowly expanded, and if it does really well we might get Epic.

Before today I would have agreed with you, and would have hoped that would be the case, but those Titans are just way too big. Where do you go from here? Your Land Raiders, Rhinos, Marines, etc will have to be bigger too, and that means all this will take up more board space and you will lack the room to maneuver (and probably therefore have really limited weapon ranges).

And as mentioned above about movement and weapon ranges in Epic40k and EpicA. I think those two systems have ridiculous movement ranges in comparison to their weapon ranges as well, and its something I always disliked. How in the same turn a unit can move further than it can shoot a weapon like a lascannon is beyond my comprehension. It would be like only getting a single shot off from an M4 while someone else is running across a football field. But those where the rules that were developed to allow for players to move around the board rather than just push both sides to the center. I don't really agree with that. Its like teleporting. The first few rounds should be the battle plan developing, with a few rounds of adjustments to that outcome to follow. In some cases you could see a unit move in a transport, disembark, and later assault an enemy unit in the FIRST TURN. Come on.

Anyway, I guess I am just old school. But Epic is what got me into gaming way back with the original AT and its sister game, SM1. That system too, does have its faults. Its a really long game to play. But the scale enables you to play what feels like a massive battle over a huge area. The larger the model, the farther it can move, dramatically shrinks that play area. And I see the same happening here. I have lived and breathed Epic for most of my life now, and I just feel like I keep getting disappointed. Well... due to sales apparently I am not the only one.

 Albertorius wrote:
Well, right now I only think that if I had wanted to play with knights (or knight sized stuff)... I would have bought knights.

And that's at least part of my issue as well. I've never found a wargame with 4/5 figures a side that I enjoyed*, Inquisitor, old versions of Epic played with Titans only - it's the formation-driven versions of Epic I have been wanting.

That said - the figures do look awesome, and if the game has nuance I could still see myself getting a force.

(*although I'm loving Shadespire)

 Yodhrin wrote:
Guys, the scale hasn't actually changed much, if at all, they just made the Titans the correct size for the scale this time.

And saying this is like buying Knights for 40K is just...odd. I mean, sure, big walking thingies, but they're entirely different games, the experience isn't even remotely similar.

What does it matter if the scale has changed or not if the, you know, actual size of the "minis" have, and wildly so at that? If I wanted to play with stuff that big, I could do that already. That's not what I expect to do when playing AT/Epic/microarmor/whatever. It is, as you put it, an experience that is not even remotely similar to what I expect to have.

And the minis is the only thing I can comment about right now, because we don't know if the rules will be any good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

xerxeshavelock wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:
Well, right now I only think that if I had wanted to play with knights (or knight sized stuff)... I would have bought knights.

And that's at least part of my issue as well. I've never found a wargame with 4/5 figures a side that I enjoyed*, Inquisitor, old versions of Epic played with Titans only - it's the formation-driven versions of Epic I have been wanting.

I have Battletech for all my "giant stompy robot, small number of minis" needs. And I can play it even inside a car.

 Papa-Schlumpf wrote:
@Grimzim: I also dislike the scale. Because with it and a 4x4 table, you wont have real tactical manoeuvrability. It is just walk/hide and engage/don´t engage. You can already have this with 40k. It isn´t like naval or space combat, more like boxing in a ring. Also I see no destroyed building kits, so you propably won´t be able to rampage through a city.

But the reason for the scale is of caused by the prime motivation of GW: sell plastic and a lot of it. Gamewise a smaller scale would maybe be better, but bigger models bring bigger revenue.

Not to mention that bigger models just look a whole lot better and are more fun to paint.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Guys, the scale hasn't actually changed much, if at all, they just made the Titans the correct size for the scale this time.

When you put several of those bigger titans on the table, it'll be as crowded as a 40k table, leaving little tactical movement - much like a lot of GW offerings.

 Yodhrin wrote:

And saying this is like buying Knights for 40K is just...odd. I mean, sure, big walking thingies, but they're entirely different games, the experience isn't even remotely similar.

I expect the buying experience and the price will be quite similar.

Personally I think all the models look great, my biggest worry is that the gameplay will become the usual, push them all to the middle and roll as many dice as possible - probably with the new 'in thing' of having combo cards to play too.

Hold on hold on.

If you play any game above it’s intended size, you’ll get a crowded board, and/or a very slow playing game?

That’s....that’s not a GW specific flaw. Or even a particularly avoidable one in terms of games design?

So I figured maybe I'd go read that "Titanicus" novel to get me in the proper mood. Searching for an epub version, what do I find?

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/titanicus-dan-abnett/1024114862

"Available for Pre-Order. This item will be available on August 21, 2018"

August 21st release date confirmed?

Could be, could not be, but here's the digital version in the meantime: https://www.blacklibrary.com/warhammer-40000/novels/titanicus-ebook.html

Epic fans are certainly allowed to stay well clear of AT if it doesn't float their boats.

But it's going to be a big hit for GW. The buzz was loud more than a year ago, which is what made them decide to delay the game to release the titans in plastic instead of resin. It's even louder now.

 gorgon wrote:
Epic fans are certainly allowed to stay well clear of AT if it doesn't float their boats.

But it's going to be a big hit for GW. The buzz was loud more than a year ago, which is what made them decide to delay the game to release the titans in plastic instead of resin. It's even louder now.

Well, I know I am super excited.

 gorgon wrote:
Epic fans are certainly allowed to stay well clear of AT if it doesn't float their boats.

But it's going to be a big hit for GW. The buzz was loud more than a year ago, which is what made them decide to delay the game to release the titans in plastic instead of resin. It's even louder now.

Well, that was also before these pics came out.

I am not saying there wont be some initial excitement, but its not going to be the game most who are familiar with epic are hoping for.

We've known for two years it's going to be 8mm and based around Titans. These things are hardly a surprise.

The miniatures look amazing. This is going to sell.

 gorgon wrote:
Epic fans are certainly allowed to stay well clear of AT if it doesn't float their boats.

But it's going to be a big hit for GW. The buzz was loud more than a year ago, which is what made them decide to delay the game to release the titans in plastic instead of resin. It's even louder now.

And that's perfectly OK in my book. Just because it is not my thing doesn't mean I wouldn't want it to exist.

Some random grabs from the internets:





THAT IS EPIC.