Adeptus Titanicus FAQ (19/04/21)

[Marshal Loss]

Link

 

 

Lots there, including updates for older campaign books to bring them in line with the new Loyalist Legions supplement, confirmation that the Warmaster's PBG profile is intentional, etc.

Edited April 19, 2021 by Marshal Loss

[Sword Brother Adelard]

The most interesting one for me is clarifying that Vanguard Fighters' +1 to hit also requires them to be 6" away from other titans. Which is how I played it from the start, because it would otherwise be broken!

[Noserenda]

Just finished reading through it, its mostly backdating the changes from loyalist legions but there are a few general tweaks in there too, clarifying voidbreaker and sharing shields nicely and controversially confirming warmaster shoulder plasma is OP, letting Acastus knights back into the Seneschals lance and still RAW denying loyalist players any battlefield assets (lol).

[Mandragola]

This is a huge update and very significantly increases the length of the document.

 

For me, the biggest single change is to shield merging. Previously, you could decide whether or not to merge shields against each individual weapon, meaning you could choose not to merge against shots from a VMB or apoc launcher and just take the hits on armour. Now, you have to merge (or not) against a whole activation.

 

There's a lot else here. All the changes from the Loyalist book are there, so for example Vox Blackout is now a 3 point strat instead of 1 and lots of other strats are nerfed. I'm happy about this because several of those were real fun-killers like scatterable mines.

 

And there are also a few minor updates to the Loyalist book itself, so they've given it a decent read through. 

 

Finally, they claim that giving the plasma blastgun on the Warmaster +1 to hit at long range instead of -1 is deliberate. Well, maybe. If the Warmaster is such a stable platform (fair enough) how come none of the other guns are more accurate?

[The boater]

I was expecting the clarification to the Voidbreaker rule, I was not expecting them to further nerf the Styrix (specifically) into the trash bin. I really dont understand the rational behind it, its like they dont want to see any knights stryx on the table

 

Interesting about the Warmaster card. You'd think that would apply equally to the turbo lasers, but "oh well"

[SkimaskMohawk]

Maybe they should ask why the "intentional" master-blast guns are only 10 points over a turbo laser or melta cannon. Or 15 over the terrible inferno guns.

[Sherrypie]

I can see the fluff explanation for Warmaster plasma. It's more akin to a defense bunker with legs and can thus pump more oompf into its guns than the nimble warhound, which is in turn more akin to a nuke with legs most of the time. Nothing too egregious there. We'll have to see if it ever matters, given the relative rarity of games big enough to comfortably fit one on the table. That said, I bloody well don't see that as the likely original intent, just as a good save :D

 

Otherwise, nice ruling for shield sharing and good to see fine tuning in the strats. Game on.

[SkimaskMohawk]

I can see the fluff explanation for Warmaster plasma. It's more akin to a defense bunker with legs and can thus pump more oompf into its guns than the nimble warhound, which is in turn more akin to a nuke with legs most of the time. Nothing too egregious there. We'll have to see if it ever matters, given the relative rarity of games big enough to comfortably fit one on the table. That said, I bloody well don't see that as the likely original intent, just as a good save :D

 

Otherwise, nice ruling for shield sharing and good to see fine tuning in the strats. Game on.

But why are the other energy weapons unchanged then? It has so much power to change a gun from falling off outside of close range to making it the most optimal out of that range, but not anything for other weapons?

 

The fluff argument breaks down unfortunately.

[Lord_Borak]

Nice to see they clarified the Void Breaker shenanigans before we get some games in. I was dreading a few arguments over that one. 

 

I'm not that fussed with the Warmaster PBGs to be honest. As Sherrypie said, Warmasters are going to pop up in only the very largest of games and I can't imagine the impact going to be THAT much in games of 2000pts or more. But, yes, it's odd that the other weapons don't benefit from the other targetting and stability benefits lol. Oh well. Maybe it's purely a plasma buff? 

 

I'm more confused with the Stratagems however. Does this mean I can't use the White Dwarf stratagems, such as miracle of Mars and Venerable machine spirit, with the Loyalist book? Seems like something my group will house rule anyway. 

Edited April 19, 2021 by Lord_Borak

[Sherrypie]

Nice to see they clarified the Void Breaker shenanigans before we get some games in. I was dreading a few arguments over that one. 

 

I'm not that fussed with the Warmaster PBGs to be honest. As Sherrypie said, Warmasters are going to pop up in only the very largest of games and I can't imagine the impact going to be THAT much in games of 2000pts or more. But, yes, it's odd that the other weapons don't benefit from the other targetting and stability benefits lol. Oh well. Maybe it's purely a plasma buff? 

 

I'm more confused with the Stratagems however. Does this mean I can't use the White Dwarf stratagems, such as miracle of Mars and Venerable machine spirit, with the Loyalist book? Seems like something my group will house rule anyway. 

You can use them just fine. What LL does is supercede similarly named stratagems from earlier publications. Carry on.

[SkimaskMohawk]

If void breaker needed clarification, then loyalist stratagem selection merits it as well. It's not clear at all.

 

Speaking on clarification; atarus' missiles really needed some. Do you need to be playing with the optional rules to do the damage to blocking? Do you disregard if not? Still follow the mechanics? Who decides on the armour values? Who provides the ruined versions? How do you have models in blocking terrain?

[Sword Brother Adelard]

 

 

Snip.

You can use them just fine. What LL does is supercede similarly named stratagems from earlier publications. Carry on.

Exactly!

[schoon]

Wow! That's a big (and welcome) update.

 

Looking forward to seeing my Loyalist book...

[Sherrypie]

If void breaker needed clarification, then loyalist stratagem selection merits it as well. It's not clear at all.

 

Speaking on clarification; atarus' missiles really needed some. Do you need to be playing with the optional rules to do the damage to blocking? Do you disregard if not? Still follow the mechanics? Who decides on the armour values? Who provides the ruined versions? How do you have models in blocking terrain?

Eh. That's a lot of adoo bout nothing. Between two reasonable adults you can reach a solid conclusion in about a minute and it doesn't matter too much in the grand scheme of things if these results vary a bit from people to people.

 

Yeah, you need destructible terrain. This builds on that rule, if it's in effect. If not, it's no different than a blast hitting any old terrain piece: nothing much happens and the game continues. Armour values are mutually agreed on at the start, with examples in the rulebook (9 being a forest, 11 a sturdy building etc.). Ruins can be used if the players have some or the piece can go away entirely, crumbling to dust. Models include battlefield assets like THI or possible scenario bits and so on. None of this is hard, let alone game breaking.

 

Rules and textual corpus shape the guiding principles of the activity, player initiative and cooperation does the rest. In case of exact answers mattering, the situation is probably a tournament where the organiser has a ready made solution how things are ruled that particular time.

[Mandragola]

If void breaker needed clarification, then loyalist stratagem selection merits it as well. It's not clear at all.

 

Speaking on clarification; atarus' missiles really needed some. Do you need to be playing with the optional rules to do the damage to blocking? Do you disregard if not? Still follow the mechanics? Who decides on the armour values? Who provides the ruined versions? How do you have models in blocking terrain?

I don't think this needs clarification. If you're not using the optional building rules then a S4 hit on a building does nothing (just as it does nothing anyway, because it's not strong enough to hurt most buildings). Damaging stuff inside the terrain is just future-proofing, though I think maybe it could hit titan hunter infantry... who it also couldn't damage.

[SkimaskMohawk]

Idk guys, maybe I'm weird in expecting rules to explain how they work properly. It should say "if using the optional rules for destroying terrain" or "this isnt affected", because it actually just tells you the damage occurs and to reference how. You know me by now, I don't like it when you're forced to make assumptions on how a rule is supposed to work, because it always comes up in game where everyone is more biased towards their own side.

 

Again, maybe it's me and my group; my question about each vs any the other day came up because I mentioned quake was nerfed and my buddy contested that. But it's true; stuff isn't written clearly across the board.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

I thought the each Vs Any was pretty clear when you read them all in context. Each means every phase, any, means any singular phase, and some specify particular phases.

 

You're looking for problems which don't really exist.

[Mandragola]

Idk guys, maybe I'm weird in expecting rules to explain how they work properly. It should say "if using the optional rules for destroying terrain" or "this isnt affected", because it actually just tells you the damage occurs and to reference how. You know me by now, I don't like it when you're forced to make assumptions on how a rule is supposed to work, because it always comes up in game where everyone is more biased towards their own side.

 

Again, maybe it's me and my group; my question about each vs any the other day came up because I mentioned quake was nerfed and my buddy contested that. But it's true; stuff isn't written clearly across the board.

In general I agree with you. I'd be much happier if the rules writing for AT was tighter. It's frustrating how careless the writers seem to be, both with clarity and also basic proofing errors. I have to be honest and say that this Atarus stuff doesn't seem like a particularly egregious example of the problem, but the problem does exist, it's true.

[SkimaskMohawk]

Brother adelard if it was simply each vs any I'd agree. But in the stratagem list you have strats that say "each strategy phase", strats that say "any strategy phase", strats that say "during the strategy phase" and strats that say "once per game" . What's the context? Because unfortunately "any" is a synonym of "each".

 

 

@mandragola I agree that the atarus stuff is minor on the whole, but it also doesn't feel particularly good to try and puzzle out if legio wargear strength gets cut if your opponent tells you no.

[Sherrypie]

Brother adelard if it was simply each vs any I'd agree. But in the stratagem list you have strats that say "each strategy phase", strats that say "any strategy phase", strats that say "during the strategy phase" and strats that say "once per game" . What's the context? Because unfortunately "any" is a synonym of "each".

 

 

@mandragola I agree that the atarus stuff is minor on the whole, but it also doesn't feel particularly good to try and puzzle out if legio wargear strength gets cut if your opponent tells you no.

It isn't in the context of the whole game's rules corpus. Stratagems build on their basic rules, the most important of which is that every stratagem can only be bought and played once unless it explicitly says otherwise. "Any" just gives you freedom to choose when you play your thing, whereas "each" or "every" allows multiple occurances. Again, more tightly technical rules text would always be nice, but this one isn't a great basis for any argument when the results would get patently absurd if the other reading was inferred.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

The application of common sense sorts out 90% of the 'issues' you highlight.

 

You can also infer things like the fact that because they have used the words each and any at different times, they dont intend them to mean the same thing.

[General Zodd]

The application of common sense sorts out 90% of the 'issues' you highlight.

 

You can also infer things like the fact that because they have used the words each and any at different times, they dont intend them to mean the same thing.

Unfortunately common sense ain’t that common, as anybody of a certain age is likely to point out! The other issue is that in the heat of a game, some people will choose to adopt the interpretation that favours them. This is much more of an issue with “competitive” games than I’ve ever encountered with AT, but I appreciate the urge to have obvious areas of contention ironed out before any dice are rolled.

 

That said, ‘any’ and ‘each’ are not synonyms, and the intent, while not crystal clear due to a range of ways of saying the same thing, is good enough. But we do all know “that guy” who’ll argue the call, and I suspect SkimaskMohawk is trying to prepare his legal defence against such an opponent!

Edited April 20, 2021 by General Zodd

[Sword Brother Adelard]

In my experience, the people who interpret rules in such ways aren't worth playing again. And actively looking for the silly ways in which the rules' ambiguities can be exploited, to head off any arguments, before they happen, is a bit of a waste of time in my view if you aren't planning on using said exploit for your own gain.

 

I also don't give much credence to some of these wilder interpretations because I rule them out almost automatically. This may just be down to the way I was trained to read things like statutes or case law. If something doesn't make sense at first pass, read around it to gain context. If that doesn't work, ascertain the different outcomes of the different interpretations and if one seems a bit off, it usually is.

[SkimaskMohawk]

@sherrypie yes, some readings of the rules would get absurd. But that doesn't mean anything if it ambiguous or actually flat out how things work and is brought up in game. I'm going to have to write an event/tournament pack eventually and can't leave things hanging simply because they sound silly.

 

 

@general zodd they...uhh, actually are. Meriam-webster, thesaurus, generic Google. They all turn up.

 

@adelard I mean, law is full of circumstances where odd interpretations of legal mechanics are brought up and applied. I mentioned in my reply to sherrypie, but this is for an inevitable event/tournament package faq so there isn't any mid game arguments.

 

 

 

Also anyone else notice they screwed up the warbringer carapace arc?

[Mandragola]

I think maybe we should move on from the subject of the lack of clarity. We know it's always been this way with AT. It's a problem but we're not going to solve it here. Maybe we could look at the actual rule changes instead.