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.

With all due respect, I've made my points as clear as I can. From here on, we can only go round in circles.

With that said, Sherrypie, I hope you don't mind.

Nah, all good. It's mostly academic curiosity at the point when all involved agree that the things were busted

Bless ya.

For what its worth, the whole Acastus drama last year was quickly killing my enthusiasm for the game, and then the "restraining order" in the FAQ finished me off...and to think I was ready to order another three boxes of them. Sigh.

Purchased Defence of Ryza and called it a day.

To be fair, it does highlight how healthy the game is otherwise that in these two years the Acastus has been pretty much the only stupid thing. Even the original custom legio shenanigans were mostly dumb fun instead of being broken (and subsequently fixed well in Ryza).

Yeah, the WD crusade rules were probably the best thing to happen last year.

With a lack of maniples that feature knights, the legio traits that benefit supporting freeblades went a long way.

If I'm looking to create a couple of 1000-point forces to play against one other, does this structure sound like a good one?

-Force A has a trio of warhound titans, supported by a lance of cerastus knight lancers as a distraction carnifex to delay an opponent trying to focus fire on the small warhounds

-Force B has a single pimped-out warlord, 1 lance of questoris knights and 1 lance of mechanicum knights providing screening and void shield stripping.

The idea behind it is that Force A has easier titans to destroy, so Force B has a bunch of smaller targets that you can easily hurt and 1 big bruiser.

Both forces would be 1000pts, with variable wargear as I am currently magnetizing absolutely everything (which is a lot of extra time and effort let me tell you)

I'll assume you're talking in a matched play context.

Remember that you cannot mix Maniples and Lances (trios of knights Banners) in the same army, ie. you can have bonus rules for one but not both types.

Maniple bonuses, legio traits and the ability to squadron pretty much always trump the gains from Lances if the force is pretty evenly split, so your Force A should probably just be a Lupercal maniple of three Warhounds and as many supporting Cerastus Banners as you can fit. That gives you more hitting power and activations, which suits their high mobility. This is a solid group.

Force B would not have enough titans to make up a maniple, so you need at least one full Lance (because an army begins with either at least one Maniple or Lance) of three Banners. Going with Warlords in such a small game is a huge activation disadvantage, because you basically have a Lance, the supporting Warlord and mayyyybe one supporting Banner if squeezing. You can do it, but the Warhound force is going to eat this group alive simply by spreading around, dodging the Warlord for a while and blasting the Knights sky-high with plasma guns before descending on the impotent Warlord.

Now, if you want to just have a bash without maniples or lances limiting the situation, you'll probably have fun doing it but the Warhound side is still going to win hard.

Hm. Well, I'm not spending a billion years printing, building, and painting this warlord to not play with it so I'll have to figure out how to make use of it. Is activation advantage such a big deal that there's no way to make a warlord work in a game that small? What would be the minimum size you'd consider bringing one to the table?

Activation economy is pretty key in this game, considering it can mean the difference between life and death on who sits in whose firing arcs. Warlords in particular, with only 1-2 45 degree turns available to them per turn when they wish to fire, really benefit from having smaller units to act first so that they can then lumber into position and let rip.

Warlords can work in a 1000 point game, for an example in a Mandatum maniple (Warlord + 2-4 Warhounds) where you have Warhounds prowling around and threatening the enemy before the Warlord commits, but I personally prefer to run lighter engines before 1500 points since more moving parts tends to give you better ability to respond on the field.

 Sherrypie wrote:
Activation economy is pretty key in this game, considering it can mean the difference between life and death on who sits in whose firing arcs. Warlords in particular, with only 1-2 45 degree turns available to them per turn when they wish to fire, really benefit from having smaller units to act first so that they can then lumber into position and let rip.

Warlords can work in a 1000 point game, for an example in a Mandatum maniple (Warlord + 2-4 Warhounds) where you have Warhounds prowling around and threatening the enemy before the Warlord commits, but I personally prefer to run lighter engines before 1500 points since more moving parts tends to give you better ability to respond on the field.

True. Maybe I need to bump up the points a little bit so that I can get the warlord into a maniple and get them...sigh...sweet, sweet, seventh edition formation bonuses.

Oh formations. How i thought I was done with you, finally.

It's not even really a matter of not having the models - a warhound costs me approximately 4 dollars to make, a warlord about 16, it just takes such a long damn time to paint everything up with all the magnetized components.

Unlike formations, though, maniples are cool and actually do factor in your strategy towards the game instead of being simple power picks.

 Sherrypie wrote:
Unlike formations, though, maniples are cool and actually do factor in your strategy towards the game instead of being simple power picks.

That's true. I think if I had my pick, I'd probably choose to incorporate a bit more unit variety into the game rather than the sort of 'artificial depth' that the layering of formations, 8th ed-style stratagems, traits etc bring to the game.

I've played my first few games now, and I think it's an absolutely fantastic skeleton for a large scale warhammer game. Rather than trying to cobble together all the rules and splatbooks to get all the stratagems, traits, legio traits, bonuses etc etc I think I'll probably homebrew in a few more additional units to keep things interesting.

It seems like the Knight rules are a fairly simple framework for adding in Imperial Army support units into the game. I think it's probably pretty unlikely that the Space Marine legions would be anywhere near titanic conflicts, but Leman Russ tank companies, Ordinatus vehicles, and Superheavy tank companies could 100% be worked in.

We know what the AT stats are for a lot of the weaponry mounted on these vehicles (Volcano Cannons, Vulcan Megabolters, Plasma Blastguns, Bellicosa Volcano Cannons, and Rapid Fire Battlecannons do already have stats, after all)

Treat yourself to a reaver and save the Warlord for when you are ready to progress to the higher point games.

A reaver enjoys 360 degree fire arcs for its carapace weapons and will keep the hounds on their toes. This will also free up the budget to include another freeblade banner for increased mobility.

Enjoy the extra time to assemble and paint the Warlord in the meantime...

the_scotsman wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Unlike formations, though, maniples are cool and actually do factor in your strategy towards the game instead of being simple power picks.

That's true. I think if I had my pick, I'd probably choose to incorporate a bit more unit variety into the game rather than the sort of 'artificial depth' that the layering of formations, 8th ed-style stratagems, traits etc bring to the game.

I've played my first few games now, and I think it's an absolutely fantastic skeleton for a large scale warhammer game. Rather than trying to cobble together all the rules and splatbooks to get all the stratagems, traits, legio traits, bonuses etc etc I think I'll probably homebrew in a few more additional units to keep things interesting.

It seems like the Knight rules are a fairly simple framework for adding in Imperial Army support units into the game. I think it's probably pretty unlikely that the Space Marine legions would be anywhere near titanic conflicts, but Leman Russ tank companies, Ordinatus vehicles, and Superheavy tank companies could 100% be worked in.

We know what the AT stats are for a lot of the weaponry mounted on these vehicles (Volcano Cannons, Vulcan Megabolters, Plasma Blastguns, Bellicosa Volcano Cannons, and Rapid Fire Battlecannons do already have stats, after all)

The issue is the alternating activation can slow things down somewhat, so while I agree some additional small units can improve things, too far into combined arms combat and you lose the core game, which really imo is the titans and their detailed command terminals/interactions. I'll give you an example, titan hunter infantry are a great battlefield asset stratagem, but each one is an activation in the combat phase, so a couple isn't an issue but 3 sets of them and you're talking 6 extra activations on top of your battlegroup. A lot of my friends are only interested in AT if it's like apoc level massive and 4000pts aside and I try and tell them they won't have the patience for that and each turn will be incredibly long.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SamusDrake wrote:
Treat yourself to a reaver and save the Warlord for when you are ready to progress to the higher point games.

A reaver enjoys 360 degree fire arcs for its carapace weapons and will keep the hounds on their toes. This will also free up the budget to include another freeblade banner for increased mobility.

Enjoy the extra time to assemble and paint the Warlord in the meantime...

Agreed, the reaver is the most flexible and I love the crapace's 360 degree arc, I definitely want to add a third reaver at some point.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Unlike formations, though, maniples are cool and actually do factor in your strategy towards the game instead of being simple power picks.

That's true. I think if I had my pick, I'd probably choose to incorporate a bit more unit variety into the game rather than the sort of 'artificial depth' that the layering of formations, 8th ed-style stratagems, traits etc bring to the game.

I've played my first few games now, and I think it's an absolutely fantastic skeleton for a large scale warhammer game. Rather than trying to cobble together all the rules and splatbooks to get all the stratagems, traits, legio traits, bonuses etc etc I think I'll probably homebrew in a few more additional units to keep things interesting.

It seems like the Knight rules are a fairly simple framework for adding in Imperial Army support units into the game. I think it's probably pretty unlikely that the Space Marine legions would be anywhere near titanic conflicts, but Leman Russ tank companies, Ordinatus vehicles, and Superheavy tank companies could 100% be worked in.

We know what the AT stats are for a lot of the weaponry mounted on these vehicles (Volcano Cannons, Vulcan Megabolters, Plasma Blastguns, Bellicosa Volcano Cannons, and Rapid Fire Battlecannons do already have stats, after all)

honestly, at this point i think you are better off playing your games as epic armageddon.
titanicus is only about 3 things: titans vs titans, titans vs knights, knights vs knights.

i suspect the only reason to why there has been a bigger fokus on knight model releases then titan releases is that there is no other game where you can play large scale knight forces, since apocalypse games for 40k are "cumbersome"

The latest Apocalypse isn't, it's a very sleek system for that purpose but then again, it shares more with Epics than 40k.

40k proper is ill suited for anything larger like that ;P

 Sherrypie wrote:
The latest Apocalypse isn't, it's a very sleek system for that purpose but then again, it shares more with Epics than 40k.

40k proper is ill suited for anything larger like that ;P

Current Apoc kicks ass!

I really hope that Rapiers/subjugators get released soon

i dont see any apoc bat reps on the tube at all........

still, it is prolly cheaper to buy 20 AT knights then 20 40k knights =P

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
i dont see any apoc bat reps on the tube at all........

still, it is prolly cheaper to buy 20 AT knights then 20 40k knights =P

Guerrilla Miniature Games has them semi-regularly.

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
i dont see any apoc bat reps on the tube at all........

still, it is prolly cheaper to buy 20 AT knights then 20 40k knights =P

Guerrilla Miniature Games has them semi-regularly.

They did like two or so a year ago, wouldn't really call that even irregular. Big part of the problem is the 40k community audience, who don't appreciate other systems. On StrikingScorpion82's channel, for example, they played a couple of Apoc games and liked the system, but the audience feedback shouted their big games back into 40k rules for... reasons.

 Sherrypie wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
i dont see any apoc bat reps on the tube at all........

still, it is prolly cheaper to buy 20 AT knights then 20 40k knights =P

Guerrilla Miniature Games has them semi-regularly.

They did like two or so a year ago, wouldn't really call that even irregular. Big part of the problem is the 40k community audience, who don't appreciate other systems. On StrikingScorpion82's channel, for example, they played a couple of Apoc games and liked the system, but the audience feedback shouted their big games back into 40k rules for... reasons.

True they play way more BFG than AT18 but there as one last week and they’ve done more than “like two.” Here’s the playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzrPO7KIAtwXinarMCsBc_O-kK4iuyPAZ

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
i dont see any apoc bat reps on the tube at all........

still, it is prolly cheaper to buy 20 AT knights then 20 40k knights =P

Guerrilla Miniature Games has them semi-regularly.

They did like two or so a year ago, wouldn't really call that even irregular. Big part of the problem is the 40k community audience, who don't appreciate other systems. On StrikingScorpion82's channel, for example, they played a couple of Apoc games and liked the system, but the audience feedback shouted their big games back into 40k rules for... reasons.

True they play way more BFG than AT18 but there as one last week and they’ve done more than “like two.” Here’s the playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzrPO7KIAtwXinarMCsBc_O-kK4iuyPAZ

We were discussing Apocalypse, not Adeptus Titanicus. GMG does do AT fairly often, which is nice.

Semi related to tactics, I've found relegating outflanking/deepstriking to strategems sorta bad for the core game. For one they're both tempered like everything else by alternating activation. Both of those forms of disruption add a lot to 30k/40k and one of the more boring elements of AT is even with varied deployment, a lot of the times it just feels like two lines clashing, there's some flanking but not as common without a table with considerable large los blockers. Been playing our games with outflanking as a core mechanic, limit is 1/3rd of battlegroup and 1sp per titan or banner outflanking. It's added a lot to our games, even the big scary titans feel less "safe". It's increased the enjoyment on both sides because neither of us tend to know when/where our outflankers will come in and it really shifts the battle.

Again when stuff like reaver's carapace or acastus's 360 arc really come in handy.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Unlike formations, though, maniples are cool and actually do factor in your strategy towards the game instead of being simple power picks.

That's true. I think if I had my pick, I'd probably choose to incorporate a bit more unit variety into the game rather than the sort of 'artificial depth' that the layering of formations, 8th ed-style stratagems, traits etc bring to the game.

I've played my first few games now, and I think it's an absolutely fantastic skeleton for a large scale warhammer game. Rather than trying to cobble together all the rules and splatbooks to get all the stratagems, traits, legio traits, bonuses etc etc I think I'll probably homebrew in a few more additional units to keep things interesting.

It seems like the Knight rules are a fairly simple framework for adding in Imperial Army support units into the game. I think it's probably pretty unlikely that the Space Marine legions would be anywhere near titanic conflicts, but Leman Russ tank companies, Ordinatus vehicles, and Superheavy tank companies could 100% be worked in.

We know what the AT stats are for a lot of the weaponry mounted on these vehicles (Volcano Cannons, Vulcan Megabolters, Plasma Blastguns, Bellicosa Volcano Cannons, and Rapid Fire Battlecannons do already have stats, after all)

honestly, at this point i think you are better off playing your games as epic armageddon.
titanicus is only about 3 things: titans vs titans, titans vs knights, knights vs knights.

i suspect the only reason to why there has been a bigger fokus on knight model releases then titan releases is that there is no other game where you can play large scale knight forces, since apocalypse games for 40k are "cumbersome"

The game I really want to play is essentially Epic, but slightly more zoomed out (I'm basically keeping Infantry at an abstraction level of assigning a points cost to the Titan Hunter Infantry stratagem and calling it Entrenched Infantry Assets. In order to reduce the activations bloat, I'm keeping "2 questoris Knights" as my rough baseline for the minimum points that a unit should cost. So if I homebrew, say, Leman Russ Tank Companies into the game, there'll be a minimum squad size of 4 tanks with roughly equivalent cost to 2 questoris knights.

I have looked over the rules for Epic Armageddon and honestly, it seems to have the exact same issues with the bigger flashier titan class units that Apoc does: They're just flat out boring. If anything, units like Baneblades and Leman Russes and other imperial army support will be quicker to run than Knights, since they don't use Ion Shields - I was just planning on having Baneblade chassis tanks having no ion shields but higher hit thresholds than Knights, representing the fact that they are approximately equally difficult to bring down but one has Ion Shielding and the other has layer after layer of blunt, stupid armor.

Am i alone on saying straight up >nope< to the Warmaster?

Just too mutch to model and paint for me, warhounds are my perfect size

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
Am i alone on saying straight up >nope< to the Warmaster?

Just too mutch to model and paint for me, warhounds are my perfect size

It seems rather forced, I really wish they'd show the command terminal so we have some idea what it does.

New AT tactic, having 200$ of disposable income more than your opponent

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
Am i alone on saying straight up >nope< to the Warmaster?

Just too mutch to model and paint for me, warhounds are my perfect size

Amen to that.

While not a bad design, its going to come with a hefty point cost and will take a few books to provide a decent selection of maniples to suit most tastes.

Not knocking the Warmaster but its one I too shall have to pass on.

Not only the maniples, but one allso have to make more terrain that is tall enugh to block wep los for that thing.

I have in the past wanted them to make the emperor class since it looked allright in epic: armageddon, but after seeing the warmaster, i dont want an emperor in AT18.(or anything taller then the warlord for that matter)

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
Am i alone on saying straight up >nope< to the Warmaster?

Just too mutch to model and paint for me, warhounds are my perfect size

I like Titanicus to play big giant robots.

This big giant robot.


I like.

Well, I already said that the Warlord is as big as I feel it can go, practically, for me, so... yeah, not feeling it.

Also, if I wanted a bigger titan I would have preferred an actual Imperator.