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.
This announcement got me to fire up my 3D printer and pump out a few models to round out my 1E Marine army (preds & whirlwinds and terminators for my 28+ 1E land raiders) - as well as a small IG army since I love tanks so much.
I agree that a couple of superheavy tanks would have been a much better than a couple of Warhounds. If the base set isn't too expensive, I'm strongly considering picking up a copy just for the "neat" factor. I do wonder, if a few months down the road they'll repack the "base" kit like they did for AT with more infantry-level (i.e., a baneblade squad or fellblade or two) to replace the warhounds.
I'm really hoping we'll see a stand alone rulesbook. I've got more than enough old minis for use, I just feel like I need a modern ruleset to go along with what I have (I think I have the 1E & 2E space marine rules - and the couple-year-old Armageddon rules, but I'm not really sure which direction they're going to go with the rules for this version).
Billicus wrote: Sure they do. Warcry broke new price ground when it launched. Pretty sure the original Titanicus launch set did too.
Grandmaster edition was pretty sensible for what it contained, as there was an absolute mountain of terrain sprues included in the box. You basically got a Warlord for free if you wanted everything in it. The problem with the set was that the units it contained were highly unrepresentative of what the game is and the sticker shock of 230 € to try things out was quite unwelcoming for many. This was later fixed with the superb deal that was the current starter box.
That 'mountain' of terrain sprues in the Grandmaster box was about 1/4 of the amount you'd need to fill a table properly and provide adequate cover. It was really a waste from a value standpoint. But it did get people buying more Civitas terrain, so mission accomplished for GW.
Those are different things, though. "The box had a lot of plastic at a discount" is a different statement than "the box gets you a full table". If you wanted everything, including the terrain and rules kits, it was of value as a starting point (at the time, buying the pieces individually would have been around 350 €). If anyone seriously sets their standards for a normal launch box at "has two fully playable forces and 4' x 4' table's worth of quality plastic terrain for a terrain heavy game" that's simply unrealistic.
I'm not sure that we're discussing the same thing. My point is that something can be discounted but not represent a good value to the customer. The only way those terrain sprues became valuable is if the customer bought a lot more of them. (Or potentially sold them off to others.)
IMO, the GM box would have been a better value without terrain sprues inflating its price. As I said, it did get people buying more of it (myself included, although I would never do that again), so it was a successful marketing tactic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormonu wrote: This announcement got me to fire up my 3D printer and pump out a few models to round out my 1E Marine army (preds & whirlwinds and terminators for my 28+ 1E land raiders) - as well as a small IG army since I love tanks so much.
I agree that a couple of superheavy tanks would have been a much better than a couple of Warhounds. If the base set isn't too expensive, I'm strongly considering picking up a copy just for the "neat" factor. I do wonder, if a few months down the road they'll repack the "base" kit like they did for AT with more infantry-level (i.e., a baneblade squad or fellblade or two) to replace the warhounds.
I'm really hoping we'll see a stand alone rulesbook. I've got more than enough old minis for use, I just feel like I need a modern ruleset to go along with what I have (I think I have the 1E & 2E space marine rules - and the couple-year-old Armageddon rules, but I'm not really sure which direction they're going to go with the rules for this version).
If folks don't want their Warhounds...come talk to me after the launch.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/25 15:08:20
Point was just that GW have priors for pushing the envelope upward with launches and to temper price hopes accordingly, I didn't mean to light the touchpaper on whether grandmaster edition was a good deal or not, apologies
I think any real starter box should have Titans. I can kind of see not having aircraft in the starter, but I think having Titans is critical. Noting really show a the scale range as having little inf, some vehicles, and then towering Titans.
My biggest fear is that GW puts the price so high as to drive me away. I started Bolt Action about a year ago an reallyed enjoyed getting a full army for about $100.
BTW Stormonu, I thought they indicated that the full rulebook would be available separately in tye first preview. I might be wrong, but I would expect them to release it separately at some point.
For the Greater Good!
40K, SW:Armada, Bolt Action, Legions Imperialis(maybe…)
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Or it’s simply measured in a different way whilst largely working the same?
Honestly? Not sure there is a better way of doing it. Blast markers are cool looking (at least when you upgrade them ^^) and really provide a great visual cue to what's happening to a unit.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/25 16:50:37
Mr_Rose wrote: If the combat rules are built around second ed, but with morale/disruption like Armageddon, it might be close to a perfect game.
I agree, but as seen in the contents of the box, there are NO blast markers.
So I bet there won't be any kind of suppression/morale degradation/disruption.
Yeah, I think the rules are going to be too cloase to 2nd ed. While I love 2nd and it is by far the best complete version, blast markers, suppression, firefights and a lot of those kind of rules would make the game much better....Just don't bring back the stupid chart.
"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma
"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma
"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Or it’s simply measured in a different way whilst largely working the same?
Honestly? Not sure there is a better way of doing it. Blast markers are cool looking (at least when you upgrade them ^^) and really provide a great visual cue to what's happening to a unit.
They're also fiddly, prone to dispute/difference of opinion whether a base is just clipped or not, and they incentivize faffing about in movement to optimize placement rather than just go for good enough and be done with it. I'll gladly take a system that *doesn't* require blast templates over one that does.
(...Flame templates, now there's a "whoooosh" of satisfaction I can appreciate. Still the same issues ofc, in the end.)
Mr_Rose wrote: If the combat rules are built around second ed, but with morale/disruption like Armageddon, it might be close to a perfect game.
I agree, but as seen in the contents of the box, there are NO blast markers.
So I bet there won't be any kind of suppression/morale degradation/disruption.
Yeah, I think the rules are going to be too cloase to 2nd ed. While I love 2nd and it is by far the best complete version, blast markers, suppression, firefights and a lot of those kind of rules would make the game much better....Just don't bring back the stupid chart.
You could do pretty much the same without the chart, if you so wanted
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Or it’s simply measured in a different way whilst largely working the same?
Honestly? Not sure there is a better way of doing it. Blast markers are cool looking (at least when you upgrade them ^^) and really provide a great visual cue to what's happening to a unit.
They're also fiddly, prone to dispute/difference of opinion whether a base is just clipped or not, and they incentivize faffing about in movement to optimize placement rather than just go for good enough and be done with it. I'll gladly take a system that *doesn't* require blast templates over one that does.
(...Flame templates, now there's a "whoooosh" of satisfaction I can appreciate. Still the same issues ofc, in the end.)
Blast markers, not blast templates.
You know, the chits you put on a detachment to show that's under fire, and under how much fire, that then degrades it's effectiveness. Completely different from a blast template, and completely unrelated with clipping or any such concern.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2023/07/25 16:56:35
Mr_Rose wrote: If the combat rules are built around second ed, but with morale/disruption like Armageddon, it might be close to a perfect game.
I agree, but as seen in the contents of the box, there are NO blast markers.
So I bet there won't be any kind of suppression/morale degradation/disruption.
Yeah, I think the rules are going to be too cloase to 2nd ed. While I love 2nd and it is by far the best complete version, blast markers, suppression, firefights and a lot of those kind of rules would make the game much better....Just don't bring back the stupid chart.
You could do pretty much the same without the chart, if you so wanted
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Or it’s simply measured in a different way whilst largely working the same?
Honestly? Not sure there is a better way of doing it. Blast markers are cool looking (at least when you upgrade them ^^) and really provide a great visual cue to what's happening to a unit.
They're also fiddly, prone to dispute/difference of opinion whether a base is just clipped or not, and they incentivize faffing about in movement to optimize placement rather than just go for good enough and be done with it. I'll gladly take a system that *doesn't* require blast templates over one that does.
(...Flame templates, now there's a "whoooosh" of satisfaction I can appreciate. Still the same issues ofc, in the end.)
Blast markers, not blast templates.
You know, the chits you put on a detachment to show that's under fire, and under how much fire, that then degrades it's effectiveness. Completely different from a blast template, and completely unrelated with clipping or any such concern.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: 2nd Ed had Warhounds fielded in pairs, either as a Special Card, or latterly with Titan Legions (I think!) a detachment card.
The Net Rules out there do allow for singles to be taken, and if taken in pairs losing 1 often results in the other bugging out or having a mental breakdown.
I do like being able to take 1, but pairs is also cool.
Sort of a 6 one way, half dozen another type of thing for me.
I still see this game being more of a mass Troops and Tanks game though.
Titans aren't that scary, or important, when large tanks/tank destroyers and aircraft are around.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: 2nd Ed had Warhounds fielded in pairs, either as a Special Card, or latterly with Titan Legions (I think!) a detachment card.
The Net Rules out there do allow for singles to be taken, and if taken in pairs losing 1 often results in the other bugging out or having a mental breakdown.
I do like being able to take 1, but pairs is also cool.
Sort of a 6 one way, half dozen another type of thing for me.
I still see this game being more of a mass Troops and Tanks game though.
Titans aren't that scary, or important, when large tanks/tank destroyers and aircraft are around.
As it should be. Unfortunately lately GW seems to portray Titans as the be all and end all of ground warfare systems in the fiction, and not needing to realistically fear anything other than other Titans or Knights.
In 2nd edition Epic or Titan Legions, any Titan that just advanced as if it were invulnerable against a non-Titan force, would soon be destroyed by sheer volume of fire if nothing else. The one exception was the Imperator, which was part of the critique against it, but even then it still had some potential weaknesses that could result in a quick kill.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/25 17:30:58
In 2nd Ed Titans could absolutely wreck stuff, but as said a reckless player could easily find their prized assets downed with quite alarming speed. Indeed requiring shots to have at least -1 Sv to drop Void Shields felt like a necessary change at the time, as it meant I couldn’t just swamp VSG’s with piddling fire, like Lasguns.
But, for Titans being rock? We have Adeptus Titanicus. For Titans being surprisingly vulnerable? We should have this, and of course loads of background explaining Titans without infantry support are at risk of being downed.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
To not have the Warhounds would put new players at the mercy of veteran Titanicus players. Much like that time when Mitch Kramer got caught by his seniors...
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: In 2nd Ed Titans could absolutely wreck stuff, but as said a reckless player could easily find their prized assets downed with quite alarming speed. Indeed requiring shots to have at least -1 Sv to drop Void Shields felt like a necessary change at the time, as it meant I couldn’t just swamp VSG’s with piddling fire, like Lasguns.
But, for Titans being rock? We have Adeptus Titanicus. For Titans being surprisingly vulnerable? We should have this, and of course loads of background explaining Titans without infantry support are at risk of being downed.
Titans desperately needed to stay away from buildings full of decent infantry, buildings gave infantry pretty decent protection, also unless armed specifically for it titans were not great in close combat. I saw plenty of titans get taken down by masses of nids.
"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma
"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma
"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma
SamusDrake wrote: To not have the Warhounds would put new players at the mercy of veteran Titanicus players. Much like that time when Mitch Kramer got caught by his seniors...
...why? I'm assuming there will be points and the like, and that the warhounds would have been swapped for super heavies.
Most of it will come down to 2 things; 1) points cost and 2) Organization/Ally rules
A Legion can take several options at X points with no Ally/Org Rules where adding a Titan may require those.
Then, what are those X points for the unit?
Net stuff, sorry it's the only real current baseline, show you can take stuff like; a Fellblade, a Falchion, a Sabre tank squad (4 tanks), a Thunderhawk, etc... all for the price of a single Warhound. Reavers are double, Warlords are triple the cost.
So if the points do end up being comparable to the above examples, I'd be hard pressed to pick a Titan over some of those choices.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/25 20:02:37
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: In 2nd Ed Titans could absolutely wreck stuff, but as said a reckless player could easily find their prized assets downed with quite alarming speed. Indeed requiring shots to have at least -1 Sv to drop Void Shields felt like a necessary change at the time, as it meant I couldn’t just swamp VSG’s with piddling fire, like Lasguns.
But, for Titans being rock? We have Adeptus Titanicus. For Titans being surprisingly vulnerable? We should have this, and of course loads of background explaining Titans without infantry support are at risk of being downed.
Titans desperately needed to stay away from buildings full of decent infantry, buildings gave infantry pretty decent protection, also unless armed specifically for it titans were not great in close combat. I saw plenty of titans get taken down by masses of nids.
Sorry to keep bringing up 2nd Ed, but it is the frame of reference which sticks in my mind.
If this is as encouraging of nabbing objectives and doing moderate damage to the foe? That adds to the complexity of using Titans. Sure they can whack holes in my units, maybe even wiping out one or two and bagging the associated victory points. But if I’ve been able to scuttle off detachment to seize 6 Objectives across the whole board, bagging a neat 30VP? What has your Titan truly achieved?
There’d a better thought about the joys of 2nd Ed but I can’t be bothered to dredge them up right now.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: In 2nd Ed Titans could absolutely wreck stuff, but as said a reckless player could easily find their prized assets downed with quite alarming speed. Indeed requiring shots to have at least -1 Sv to drop Void Shields felt like a necessary change at the time, as it meant I couldn’t just swamp VSG’s with piddling fire, like Lasguns.
But, for Titans being rock? We have Adeptus Titanicus. For Titans being surprisingly vulnerable? We should have this, and of course loads of background explaining Titans without infantry support are at risk of being downed.
Titans desperately needed to stay away from buildings full of decent infantry, buildings gave infantry pretty decent protection, also unless armed specifically for it titans were not great in close combat. I saw plenty of titans get taken down by masses of nids.
[Krytos]Shame if something should you know...just happen to that building[/Krytos]
I think that's a thing that's been brought over from Titanicus to some degree from what the preview articles have said.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/25 21:58:30
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: In 2nd Ed Titans could absolutely wreck stuff, but as said a reckless player could easily find their prized assets downed with quite alarming speed. Indeed requiring shots to have at least -1 Sv to drop Void Shields felt like a necessary change at the time, as it meant I couldn’t just swamp VSG’s with piddling fire, like Lasguns.
But, for Titans being rock? We have Adeptus Titanicus. For Titans being surprisingly vulnerable? We should have this, and of course loads of background explaining Titans without infantry support are at risk of being downed.
Titans desperately needed to stay away from buildings full of decent infantry, buildings gave infantry pretty decent protection, also unless armed specifically for it titans were not great in close combat. I saw plenty of titans get taken down by masses of nids.
[Krytos]Shame if something should you know...just happen to that building[/Krytos]
I think that's a thing that's been brought over from Titanicus to some degree from what the preview articles have said.
Oh god I sound like Uncle Albert! But….during 2nd Ed?
Buildings could be destroyed. Not by just any old weapon, and even if you had the right weapon it wasn’t terribly easy.
Of course, in 2nd Ed side or rear shots brought benefits, especially against Titans, as their armour was somewhat weaker (though side shots had a slightly hard time with the aiming dice). Even with a “shields ignore 0 Sv Mod”, you just ordered your shots accordingly, and then let even your dinky weapons have their wicked way.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: In 2nd Ed Titans could absolutely wreck stuff, but as said a reckless player could easily find their prized assets downed with quite alarming speed. Indeed requiring shots to have at least -1 Sv to drop Void Shields felt like a necessary change at the time, as it meant I couldn’t just swamp VSG’s with piddling fire, like Lasguns.
But, for Titans being rock? We have Adeptus Titanicus. For Titans being surprisingly vulnerable? We should have this, and of course loads of background explaining Titans without infantry support are at risk of being downed.
Titans desperately needed to stay away from buildings full of decent infantry, buildings gave infantry pretty decent protection, also unless armed specifically for it titans were not great in close combat. I saw plenty of titans get taken down by masses of nids.
[Krytos]Shame if something should you know...just happen to that building[/Krytos]
I think that's a thing that's been brought over from Titanicus to some degree from what the preview articles have said.
Oh god I sound like Uncle Albert! But….during 2nd Ed?
Buildings could be destroyed. Not by just any old weapon, and even if you had the right weapon it wasn’t terribly easy.
Of course, in 2nd Ed side or rear shots brought benefits, especially against Titans, as their armour was somewhat weaker (though side shots had a slightly hard time with the aiming dice). Even with a “shields ignore 0 Sv Mod”, you just ordered your shots accordingly, and then let even your dinky weapons have their wicked way.
That's why we're packing Quake to the eyeballs.
What's the big draw of 2nd ed over Epic40K and Armageddon? I joined for Epic40K (unintentionally winning the starter set in a painting competition at a FLGS) so I've not played the earliest set of rules, but it is hard to imagine Epic without the suppression and manoeuvre elements of the later games. As I understand it, it doesn't even have Warmaster's command focus?
What makes it Epic rather than 40K with lots of squads grouped together? The flow of 3rd and 4th with suppression/fall back/regroup and counter attacks from both sides definitely captured that sweeping feeling, with the Firefight and Assault mechanics producing dramatic effects over just shooting but being generally more highly telegraphed and short ranged. A big game of Armageddon did feel like you were controlling a front, weathering artillery and long range firepower whilst you gathered your forces and reserves to either assault to push through or counter assault and hold the line.
I also consider the E:A tournament scenario close to a master piece is mission design when it comes to asymmetric factions and keeping the whole board open to scoring across a game. You can certainly focus on one type of victory, but there's a corresponding objective that keeps you vaguely honest in playing the same game the opponent is even for those focused on thunderhawk's full of space marines.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/07/25 22:49:44
...all for the price of a single Warhound. Reavers are double, Warlords are triple the cost.
Sorry, which game are you referencing? For Titanicus its about 220 points for a hound, 330 for a reaver and 480 for a lord.
The updated rules used and maintained by the various communities supporting Epic in the various forms.
They are 275, 575, and 725. So nearly double then triple.
If GW uses Titanicus points, which they won't, then the costs of superheavies will reflect that and go down as well. Cheaper Titans in Titanicus are to sell you more Titans.
The point, is that there will be, and are, other options to compete with Titans that tend to do more (or have more bang for buck) than a Titan.
Titans are also clearly not the focus of Legions Imperialis.
vadersson wrote: I think any real starter box should have Titans. I can kind of see not having aircraft in the starter, but I think having Titans is critical. Noting really show a the scale range as having little inf, some vehicles, and then towering Titans.
My biggest fear is that GW puts the price so high as to drive me away. I started Bolt Action about a year ago an reallyed enjoyed getting a full army for about $100.
BTW Stormonu, I thought they indicated that the full rulebook would be available separately in tye first preview. I might be wrong, but I would expect them to release it separately at some point.
I think the problem with including Titans in the starter set is that they're such a large investment in a force that they're probably not great to have in the small starter games that the starter set is trying to recreate, and it's also not great to "force" people into a specific Titan. Like, maybe the person doesn't want 2x Warhounds, maybe they want a Reaver, or a Warlord, or no Titans at all.
The extra bad thing in this case is that the Warhounds aren't even new models, they're models that most AT fans will already have.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: In 2nd Ed Titans could absolutely wreck stuff, but as said a reckless player could easily find their prized assets downed with quite alarming speed. Indeed requiring shots to have at least -1 Sv to drop Void Shields felt like a necessary change at the time, as it meant I couldn’t just swamp VSG’s with piddling fire, like Lasguns.
But, for Titans being rock? We have Adeptus Titanicus. For Titans being surprisingly vulnerable? We should have this, and of course loads of background explaining Titans without infantry support are at risk of being downed.
Titans desperately needed to stay away from buildings full of decent infantry, buildings gave infantry pretty decent protection, also unless armed specifically for it titans were not great in close combat. I saw plenty of titans get taken down by masses of nids.
[Krytos]Shame if something should you know...just happen to that building[/Krytos]
I think that's a thing that's been brought over from Titanicus to some degree from what the preview articles have said.
Oh god I sound like Uncle Albert! But….during 2nd Ed?
Buildings could be destroyed. Not by just any old weapon, and even if you had the right weapon it wasn’t terribly easy.
Of course, in 2nd Ed side or rear shots brought benefits, especially against Titans, as their armour was somewhat weaker (though side shots had a slightly hard time with the aiming dice). Even with a “shields ignore 0 Sv Mod”, you just ordered your shots accordingly, and then let even your dinky weapons have their wicked way.
That's why we're packing Quake to the eyeballs.
What's the big draw of 2nd ed over Epic40K and Armageddon? I joined for Epic40K (unintentionally winning the starter set in a painting competition at a FLGS) so I've not played the earliest set of rules, but it is hard to imagine Epic without the suppression and manoeuvre elements of the later games. As I understand it, it doesn't even have Warmaster's command focus?
What makes it Epic rather than 40K with lots of squads grouped together? The flow of 3rd and 4th with suppression/fall back/regroup and counter attacks from both sides definitely captured that sweeping feeling, with the Firefight and Assault mechanics producing dramatic effects over just shooting but being generally more highly telegraphed and short ranged. A big game of Armageddon did feel like you were controlling a front, weathering artillery and long range firepower whilst you gathered your forces and reserves to either assault to push through or counter assault and hold the line.
I also consider the E:A tournament scenario close to a master piece is mission design when it comes to asymmetric factions and keeping the whole board open to scoring across a game. You can certainly focus on one type of victory, but there's a corresponding objective that keeps you vaguely honest in playing the same game the opponent is even for those focused on thunderhawk's full of space marines.
Of course quake cannons if you are going to fight in a city, the buildings were still difficult to destroy even with quake cannons though.
Thats why I said second with those rules additions. I played just about every version of epic. 2nd ed was the biggest, and represented whole companies with attachments on the field it truly was grand. You had multiple companies of marines, companies of landraiders, Reaver battle groups consisting of three reavers, whole companies dropping down in drop pods! At the time I didn't have a problem with the morale system...because there was nothing different, but it was seriously lacking, what second also had going for it was the order counters which made it very strategic, but simple, you had to plan your actions in advance, not just react to what the other player was doing. Also the titans were just so much better in second, I don't mean they were more powerful, or game impactful, they were just more fun to play, they had way more option as far as weapons went, and the targeting grid was awesome, really didn't take any extra time or rolls, but added so much flavor.
Epic 40k was more like assembled strike forces, built almost just like 40k armies are just on a smaller scale. Armageddon was a step in the right direction, but it also was pretty small, detachments being about the average size, and they both ditched the orders counter which in my opinion made epic very strategic. The later versions of epic were just so reactionary, you moved this group there, so I'm going to move this group there to kill it, so then you will move this group there to kill that one....etc. However the blast markers, suppression and morale system of the later versions were the highlights of those games.
They all had their merits, I know a lot of 2nd ed people that hated the changes, and I get that, but they were not bad games.
I wish they took the best of second and combined it with the best of the rest.....but I think they are just leaning towards mostly second, but the unit sizes make me think more if the later versions more attachment size than full companies...I could be wrong.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/07/26 01:33:40
"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma
"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma
"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma
