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.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I know peeps are probably aware, Like vs Like is the entire reason they were, financially, to reintroduce Adeptus Titanicus.

But as you may not be aware, the Legion Traits and Maniples really do add variety. And as more and more armaments and Knight variants come out, so does the tactical variety increase. This is to a far greater degree than such things affect 40k.

This is still a game very much in its infancy, having been out for barely a year. And in the pre-orders of the new guns is anything to go by, it’s definitely found it’s niche.

Main reason to play tabletop games vs computer games is the visual/collector aspect. Adeptus Titanicus offers nothing in that regard, just blue on blue. It took the plague of 40k proper, marine on marine fights, and made it even blander. It's just a massive missed opportunity, but I understand the logic behind it, there's probably not enough Xenos players left in the world to make it worth their while to release anything for them after two decades of Imperial fanboys handling the IP.

Which is related to the topic of survey because it's also what I put down (if more politely)

I think the questions about blitzbowl etc are important but will become more so in the next few years,

ie it will let GW see if these gateway, normal toy store games along with atuff like vedros are actually bringing in new players, and if so at what rate

and that will tell them if they should be doing more/less/something different as they've not had anything with a mainstream presence for a long time now and anything they learned from how heroquest/Warhammer quest etc performed is going to be very dated

I suspect they’ve got the data from wholesale on that?

If they had initial orders for say, 50,000 units, and in 12 months have then sold say, 5,000 more? Suggests the market aimed for may not be there.

Numbers used for illustrative purposes only.

Oh, the survey. Yeah, that felt like school home work, but appreciated the opportunities to not only dig at GW but also praise them for the last few years.

The digs were basically at pricing and lack of local events, while praise was for making an effort to allow for an easier entry into the whole Warhammer hobby( First Strike and Kill Team ) and to engage with the gaming community. Mostly praise though.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I suspect they’ve got the data from wholesale on that?

If they had initial orders for say, 50,000 units, and in 12 months have then sold say, 5,000 more? Suggests the market aimed for may not be there.

Numbers used for illustrative purposes only.

They know what they're selling, but not how many of those sales translate into a new gamer showing up knocking on Warhammer or AoS door over the next few years, what they're going to want is for these things to be gateways to more sales later, and if they're not then they need to try something else

(although that's not to say they don't want sales too, but I don't think that's the primary idea of them otherwise we'd see far less recycling of old kits and perhaps more zero assembly required boardgame stuff as boardgamers as a group don't like making minis even push fit ones)

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I don't see how measuring LOS from weapons, and needing to see properly see the target are things that "bog the game down".

TBH I would far rather we go to the opposite situation, where like with melee combat we move to an abstracted LOS system based on the bases of models rather than the models themselves.

Is there terrain between your model's base and the target's base? No LOS. Is the base partially obscured? Cover. Is the base fully in the open? No cover.

Let things like laser line-drawers determine LOS in cases where competitiveness matters. An argument about whether your model's head can see part of the enemy model is the same as an argument as to whether Arbitrary Point of Your Model can see part of the enemy model.

Cronch wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I know peeps are probably aware, Like vs Like is the entire reason they were, financially, to reintroduce Adeptus Titanicus.

But as you may not be aware, the Legion Traits and Maniples really do add variety. And as more and more armaments and Knight variants come out, so does the tactical variety increase. This is to a far greater degree than such things affect 40k.

This is still a game very much in its infancy, having been out for barely a year. And in the pre-orders of the new guns is anything to go by, it’s definitely found it’s niche.

Main reason to play tabletop games vs computer games is the visual/collector aspect. Adeptus Titanicus offers nothing in that regard, just blue on blue. It took the plague of 40k proper, marine on marine fights, and made it even blander. It's just a massive missed opportunity, but I understand the logic behind it, there's probably not enough Xenos players left in the world to make it worth their while to release anything for them after two decades of Imperial fanboys handling the IP.

Which is related to the topic of survey because it's also what I put down (if more politely)

Just out of curiosity, what have you been smoking if you think AT offers nothing on those aspects? Just like there's room for creative expression on the Heresy front, the internet is full of amazingly talented works of those who are inspired to dabble with the possibility of finally owning a titan legio of their own without selling their house and kids. Though the range is somewhat limited at the moment, a bit of creative spark takes one pretty far and as Doc said, the armies really don't play like blue on blue due to maniple and legio rules. Many people also use the miniatures alongside their existing Epic projects, where they slot without any problems.

Sure, it would be cool to get xenos expansions and we probably will one of these years, but calling stuff that's out thus far bland is just personal bias. Especially given the game is ruleswise anything but.

Not saying the game is bad rules-wise.

If the just re-skin the AT Box with the current rules, it in the 40K timeline, more traditional fun 40k fluff, more bright colours in the art direction, incl. the old logo instead of all the pretentiously angsty brown and new sculpts for the titans more in line with the old looks, not the fugly resin FW ones for 28mm scale, e.g. proper walking cities on chicken legs, old-school warhounds with a proper wolf head, etc. it‘d be amazing.

Yes, it is personal bias, as are all opinions in general. The fact is, you have two sides, which happen to use the same kits. I also personally despise the HH setting in general, but that's neither here nor there- if there were gargants, Knights etc. available like in Epic 40k, I'd just blissfully ignore that aspect. As it is, it's just more boring imperium on imperium (except EVIL!) fights.

Cronch wrote:
Yes, it is personal bias, as are all opinions in general. The fact is, you have two sides, which happen to use the same kits. I also personally despise the HH setting in general, but that's neither here nor there- if there were gargants, Knights etc. available like in Epic 40k, I'd just blissfully ignore that aspect. As it is, it's just more boring imperium on imperium (except EVIL!) fights.

Historics use humans on all sides, yet have done well for two centuries. Small differences get pretty far.

I'd say a general hobbyist doing "their Legio" has a lot more freedom and modelling opportunities with the extremely well designed Titanicus kits (seriously, they are just amazing to work with) than with some other games' entire ranges. Also, there are Knights of two varieties currently and a third is mentioned in the latest rules supplement, which brings all-Knight armies on the table. Specialist Games team has talked of several new titan chassii they want to explore and have years of plans in the making. Success of the game has blown everyone out of the water and this snowball shows no signs of stopping.

 Sherrypie wrote:

Cronch wrote:
Yes, it is personal bias, as are all opinions in general. The fact is, you have two sides, which happen to use the same kits. I also personally despise the HH setting in general, but that's neither here nor there- if there were gargants, Knights etc. available like in Epic 40k, I'd just blissfully ignore that aspect. As it is, it's just more boring imperium on imperium (except EVIL!) fights.

Historics use humans on all sides, yet have done well for two centuries. Small differences get pretty far.

Sure. And that's why people play Bolt Action or Flames of War or proper Historicals.

That's not what people want from a Games Workshop game

 Crimson wrote:
They ask you whether you play the game X and you say 'yes', it gives you questions about that game, if you say 'no' it just moves forward.

I thought that's what the survey did, given I said "No" to AOS and it just moved on.

Cronch wrote:
Yes, it is personal bias, as are all opinions in general. The fact is, you have two sides, which happen to use the same kits. I also personally despise the HH setting in general, but that's neither here nor there- if there were gargants, Knights etc. available like in Epic 40k, I'd just blissfully ignore that aspect. As it is, it's just more boring imperium on imperium (except EVIL!) fights.

Thats actually a fair point you make about the Imperials vs Traitors. Its understandable that Titanicus is keeping things simple for the moment and was initially set in the Horus Heresy era, but I do wish GW would ease up using Chaos as a poster boy faction for most of their games. The Nighthaunts for the AOS starter set were at least a change from the Khorne chaps.

Yeah, some of the questions were a little strange.

It asks you if you play certain games, for example AoS. I said no, and then it just moved on.

I wish it would ask me why I didn't play and what would make me play that game.

I really want them to understand all the reasons I hate AoS.

They should have asked more questions about the rules portion. I want to give them a piece of my mind.

Also, there were a very large number of questions related to tournaments and events.

I also wished they'd ask what kind of models we would be interested in seeing for the future.

 Sherrypie wrote:

Cronch wrote:
Yes, it is personal bias, as are all opinions in general. The fact is, you have two sides, which happen to use the same kits. I also personally despise the HH setting in general, but that's neither here nor there- if there were gargants, Knights etc. available like in Epic 40k, I'd just blissfully ignore that aspect. As it is, it's just more boring imperium on imperium (except EVIL!) fights.

Historics use humans on all sides, yet have done well for two centuries. Small differences get pretty far.

I'd say a general hobbyist doing "their Legio" has a lot more freedom and modelling opportunities with the extremely well designed Titanicus kits (seriously, they are just amazing to work with) than with some other games' entire ranges. Also, there are Knights of two varieties currently and a third is mentioned in the latest rules supplement, which brings all-Knight armies on the table. Specialist Games team has talked of several new titan chassii they want to explore and have years of plans in the making. Success of the game has blown everyone out of the water and this snowball shows no signs of stopping.

The complaint isn't so much what you can do if you are so inclined, but that the Horus Heresy does not represent the larger 40k setting. If you want to compare that to historicals, it's as if all that was on offer is five hundred years of Americans punching different Americans. if you want ancient Romans or Egyptians, or Samurai or Mongols, you're out of luck. It's a specific, incomplete look at the setting, and people getting hooked on undeniably major parts of the wider setting that are not represented in this little conflict don't get to play. It's a simple as that.

Now sure, there are good reasons for Titanicus being what it is, first and foremost the apparent need to save money on plastic sprues. But no matter how great an Imperial Titan may look, if you're not into that sort of stuff you're out of luck. For the moment anyway.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Yeah, some of the questions were a little strange.

It asks you if you play certain games, for example AoS. I said no, and then it just moved on.

I wish it would ask me why I didn't play and what would make me play that game.

I really want them to understand all the reasons I hate AoS.

They should have asked more questions about the rules portion. I want to give them a piece of my mind.

Also, there were a very large number of questions related to tournaments and events.

I also wished they'd ask what kind of models we would be interested in seeing for the future.

Yeah, that part I found odd, too. I would have had a thing or two to say about 40k and AoS in their current editions, but apparently they're happy knowing I don't play.

I was not positive in this survey, tried to be but really just said they were mad for getting rid of fantasy. I just hope enough people didn't fawn to them and actually told them they were wrong and they might do something about it one fine day when Porcine Air takes off.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

I really want them to understand all the reasons I hate AoS.

There is no lack of negative feedback on AOS for them to attempt to fill the gap for.

No need to subject someone on the team to a giant rant box of a response when they could just look at any end of the community.

 Olthannon wrote:
I was not positive in this survey, tried to be but really just said they were mad for getting rid of fantasy. I just hope enough people didn't fawn to them and actually told them they were wrong and they might do something about it one fine day when Porcine Air takes off.

Because god forbid anyone enjoy something you don't.

I made it a point to write Warhammer Fantasy whenever Other systems showed up. I didn't go into a rant or anything, and tried to be helpful.

I complained about prices. Prices - and the size of armies required for "standard" play - are the main thing keeping people I know (both new and lapsed players) away from the game.

I also complained about my own personal dislike of Stratagems, which - to me - suck a lot of the fun of the game as it becomes more and more like a card game with expensive "DLC" (and, if we are being honest, they are not that different than Formations).

To this point, I also complained about the way Command Points are generated, which I think is a detriment to the game as a whole (especially compared to how AoS does it).

I also expressed my dislike of how GW split the rules up between the new Chaos Codex and the new Vigilus book. I know many people (myself included) who thought the split was: Existing players use the old codex and buy the vigilus book, new players just buy the new Chaos Codex. This is not true, as regardless of which Chaos codex you have, you still need the Vigilus book. I firmly believe a better strategy would have been to release Vigilus now, then 6 months from now release the new Chaos Codex with ALL of the updated rules.

I also expressed my disappointment with Adeptus Titanticus. The game's scale is really large, which makes the individual models super expensive to purchase. I love the idea of the game but when FW charges $154 for ONE model, the game is not going to be as popular as it could have been.

I also expressed my dissatisfaction with the switch to "local prices" for Forge World, which increased the real cost of everything in the store for people outside the UK by an exorbitant sum. Americans are paying 20 to 30% more for items from Forge World than people in the UK are. I can understand shipping costs are greater for those outside of the UK but that does NOT translate to a 20-30% price hike. Just charge more for shipping, the way every other company works.

I also expressed my love of 30k and the recent move to update units in the play test/errata.

I additionally expressed my frustration with the slow pace at which GW updates their 40k line. I believe FAQs, errata and rebalancing/points adjustments should happen with much more regularity than what we are currently getting. I also believe GW should join other wargaming companies in embracing the 21st century and create an online tool with which you can create lists, which would GW to more easily and readily update points as they could just update the app, rather than regularly publishing a Chapter Approved book and updating codexes.

I also expressed my desire for even more customization rules for open and narrative play (ala the Land Raider rules in Chapter Approved 2017).

Not that I'd mind lower prices, but... What is that mysterious $154 model for AT, given you get a full playable army of good size from one 130€ battlegroup box (two warhound, one reaver and a warlord)?

 Sherrypie wrote:
Not that I'd mind lower prices, but... What is that mysterious $154 model for AT, given you get a full playable army of good size from one 130€ battlegroup box (two warhound, one reaver and a warlord)?

The Adeptus Titanicus Warlord Battle Titan with Macro-Gatling Blaster and Quake Cannon is 154 bucks by itself.

If you just want one Warlord Titan, it is 110 bucks.

I do not understand why this game is so expensive, or why the kits are so complex. Do we really need 144 pieces for a Warlord titan? I think not.

I will applaud GW for having actual bundles that offer a discount. The bundle you mentioned is $235 if you bought everything individually or $170 in the bundle (which is a savings of 65 bucks!).

I think the more posable kits are awesome. Having options to play around, bits left over, actual freedom of movement and what not is absolutely stellar compared to the more monopose lines of boredom they are pushing for the main ranges. That's absolutely a mark in their favor.

The reason we believe titanicus is expensive is because the only Titan available at launch was the Warlord( £65 ) and of course the GME boxed game( £175 ). Alone, this was enough to put many off the game. So for those left to reason "well its just the warlord and a pack of Knights - whats the big deal?", they then found out that "you need a maniple to play with a minimum of three titans.". So you had more potential players horrified at the thought of forking out £195 for 3 Warlords just to have a "legal" army...

Thankfully the Reaver and Warhounds proved to be far cheaper and debunked the myth that to play AT you must own a small collection of Warlords. Also, the Knight kits were affordable( though a tad expensive for what they were) and useful for other games such as ye'olde Epic, Battletech, a scaled down Imperial Knights:Renegade and Horizon Wars. Not every player gets to own a 40K Knight and so being able to purchase three of the mini-sized marvels for £20 is damn cool! I get the feeling that the Questoris kit will prove to be the best selling product in the Titanicus range...

The real expense of Adeptus Titanicus - as it currently stands - is in the weapons, terminals and card packs. The ruleset covers enough for a small two player game - 3 titans and 1 Knight banner for each player - and the Reaver and Warhounds will have to have different weapons for there is only one card of each. If one is serious about Titanicus then you'll need more components.

Regarding the complex detail of the AT kits - its a game of Titans! If I can't afford a 40K Resin Titan then I'm delighted for my 8mm Titan to look just as good at a small fraction of the price! Although the Reaver could do with an "easy-to-build" kit and perhaps a little more thought for magnets would be welcome...

Getting back to the topic on hand, its been a great year for GW and I appreciate the effort they have made to make the hobby more accessible to all, not just those of us with disposable income.

Cronch wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I know peeps are probably aware, Like vs Like is the entire reason they were, financially, to reintroduce Adeptus Titanicus.

But as you may not be aware, the Legion Traits and Maniples really do add variety. And as more and more armaments and Knight variants come out, so does the tactical variety increase. This is to a far greater degree than such things affect 40k.

This is still a game very much in its infancy, having been out for barely a year. And in the pre-orders of the new guns is anything to go by, it’s definitely found it’s niche.

Main reason to play tabletop games vs computer games is the visual/collector aspect. Adeptus Titanicus offers nothing in that regard, just blue on blue. It took the plague of 40k proper, marine on marine fights, and made it even blander. It's just a massive missed opportunity, but I understand the logic behind it, there's probably not enough Xenos players left in the world to make it worth their while to release anything for them after two decades of Imperial fanboys handling the IP.

Which is related to the topic of survey because it's also what I put down (if more politely)

Someone isn't a member of any AT groups online. It's not "Blue on Blue." It's quite a skillful game, that is far more action packed and random than 40K is. If you've not played anything other than the "basic" starter rules I can understand your opinion. But if you've played with the Advanced rules, it is a whole other ball game.

 Togusa wrote:


Someone isn't a member of any AT groups online. It's not "Blue on Blue." It's quite a skillful game, that is far more action packed and random than 40K is. If you've not played anything other than the "basic" starter rules I can understand your opinion. But if you've played with the Advanced rules, it is a whole other ball game.

I believe our friend was referring to the models on the tabletop - its the same five units to look at, save for their armament.

If people didn't care about the background and models, they wouldn't be playing GW games. So it doesn't matter how good the game's rules are. If it's Imperial titans vs traitor imperial titans, it's not going to appeal to a lot of people. Same thing with imperial starships vs. repainted imperial starships.

I made it a point to write Warhammer Fantasy whenever Other systems showed up. I didn't go into a rant or anything, and tried to be helpful.

Same, I feel like those crazy people on the street corner trying to talk about Jesus.

"Excuse me sir, do you have a minute to talk about our Lord and saviour Karl Franz?"

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
If people didn't care about the background and models, they wouldn't be playing GW games. So it doesn't matter how good the game's rules are. If it's Imperial titans vs traitor imperial titans, it's not going to appeal to a lot of people. Same thing with imperial starships vs. repainted imperial starships.

Aaaah that\s why it\s constantly selling out with GW struggling to come up with enough supply.

And imperium vs chaos is basically what GW bases it's whole marketing stick...We have power armour vs power armour as the main selling point in 40k.

Do people need Titanicus stuff? Because it's gathering dust where I am.