Hello! I wrote the rulebook, and yeah, it's not very well written 😅 Isn't hindsight great? I maintain that game design and rules writing are two totally different skill sets, and I've never been good at the latter... Disclaimer Because I Have To: Titanicus is not "my" game, it is entirely the property of Games Workshop, I designed the core game and wrote the rulebook while working as part of the Specialist Brands studio, it was a team effort, I cannot (and don't want to) take sole credit for it. Also, I've not played the game in years, so I'm probably a bit rusty. Anything here is to be taken with a pinch of salt. I can't give a "correct" answer, that's something that only GW can do. There have been multiple FAQs and expansions written by new designers; I left the company before the game was released. What I say here might be overruled by things they've said, and their word definitely takes precedence. I'm just presenting my original intentions so you know where I was coming from when I wrote the rules. There we go, that's out of the way! Basically, in that paragraph you've highlighted (the second paragraph of "3. Check Firing Solution" on page 33), the second and third sentences were only meant to apply in edge cases, i.e. "if it's not immediately clear". Think of them as being in parentheses. Oof, yeah, it's really not very well written, is it? If I were editing the text now, based on my knowledge of the rules, I'd rework it as follows: "Then, determine whether the target is within the attacking weapon's firing arc (see page 26). If the target is not within the weapon's firing arc, the attack is wasted. [Boxout] EDGE CASES If it's not immediately clear which arc the target is in, use the centre of its base as a point of reference. If the centre of its base is exactly on the line between two arcs, it counts as being in both. [Boxout ends]" The bigger problem, though, is that the rulebook doesn't go into any real detail on checking line of sight, and determining whether a model falls into an arc. The original intention was to use true line of sight, so the target's base was broadly ignored; in the majority of situations during testing, it was abundantly clear when a model was in arc, and bases would only be used in rare cases when a dispute came up. Of course, knowing what I know now, the rules should have been a lot more robust, and should probably have just used the base as a reference point for everything... Honestly, I'm surprised there hasn't been a full rewrite of the rulebook since release! It definitely needs one. Hope that's helpful. I look forward to this comment being screenshotted and shared around the internet 😄
@Tabletop_Standard
Жыл бұрын
Hi James. Firstly thanks for all the hard work on AT one of the best (and underrated) games to launch in many a year! Secondly, thanks for the comment and letting us know your thoughts. Writing anything is a difficult task and the game plays excellent none the less. I totally understand the disclaimer and we'll see if GW drops any formal FAQ in the future. So just to be clear any part of the base that is within the forward arc counts as a target if I'm understanding your intentions? Is the boxout with the "if it is not immediately clear txt and the centre of the base" part even necessary in your revised version? I think the arc templates and a laser which most players will have will sort out any doubts/edge cases. I really appreciate the comment and I'd love to pick your brains on a few things if you'd be kind enough and have the time? Completely unofficial of course and obviously no pressure to do so. If you pick up my reply and feel the urge, email me on tabletop_standard@outlook.com Again no hard feelings if not. Thanks again, big love Chris
@inigoruizdeapodaca8427
Жыл бұрын
Congrats James because the game is amazing. Let's hope GW pushed it forward with more content. Old Epic has still a lot of followers and eldar and tyranids titans would be awesome. Wihful thinking.
@Paulus449
8 ай бұрын
AT is the finest GW game I have ever had the pleasure of playing. Along with Dark Future for my favourite games of all time
@IVIaskerade
Жыл бұрын
I'm fine using "any part of the base" because I see the base as an abstraction of the battlefield space occupied by a moving fighting titan represented on a static model, rather than just a way of stopping it tipping over due to our lamentable lack of suspensor technology.
@kurtl8425
Жыл бұрын
The disadvantage of having a larger unit/model is that it’s easier to target/get within firing arc. If you are supposed to use the theoretical “center of the base” for the target rather than the entire base it makes the largest titan effectively as hard to target as the smallest knight.
@Tabletop_Standard
Жыл бұрын
😄 This is true, the whole thing made my peanut of a brain ache
@kurtl8425
Жыл бұрын
@@Tabletop_Standard yeah some people overthink things. Consider that it’s the size of a large hotel. A monstrous machine clad in tons of meters thick ceramite armor and surrounded by mysterious and barely understood shields that are powered by what is effectively a small star in its chest stomping across the battlefield. It’d be all but impossible to hide and should be virtually impossible for anything but the most powerful and destructive weapons to damage. But to simply be able to point a weapon at it should be pretty easy. Remember, you still have roll to hit it and then damage it. And the “1” of that die shows up with frustrating regularity.
@foulpilgrim5285
Жыл бұрын
I was in that Facebook discussion. Glad to see you make a vid about it. The text in question almost feels like it was accidentally left in the book from previous playtest shenanigans. It just doesn't jive with the rest of what's printed. In fact, if you hadn't brought it up, we'd have probably never even noticed it lol And I agree with the bit about why not just use the templates instead drawing lines. Seems like a no-brainer. For our games, when checking firing solutions, we've always looked for the base and then looked to see what parts of the titan were actually in arc. And we'd say, "Oh, the right weapon/body/legs can be targeted or randomly chosen-but the head and left arm weapon are clearly out of arc." And that's worked wonderfully for all our games. Primarily because it jives with the whole "You can only damage what the weapon can see," sorta rules. Also, impressed that yoi actually got a response back from a GW rep, that's encouraging. Even if their answers really didn't answer anything 🤦🏻♂️😆
@Tabletop_Standard
Жыл бұрын
It totally blind sided me when I heard about it and then found that's how some played it and some events so had to delve into it. The GW chat is brilliant as much as I poke fun at GW that's a good system and they do have a lot of decent staff especially at ground level
@kglguy
Жыл бұрын
GW does know how to twist even a good ruleset into a mess. The ruling from the live chat seems good enough, and how I've always understood the situation. Unless we get an official FAQ saying otherwise, I'll keep sticking with that.
@Tabletop_Standard
Жыл бұрын
Stick with it bud me too
@raggedkarma
Жыл бұрын
I always assumed the centre-point reference was for the target arc (for side/rear bonus damage), not weapon arc. Thinking about it, this would make blast weapons more accurate, since you check the weapon arc on the blast marker itself, not the model.
@Tabletop_Standard
Жыл бұрын
Me too but I can see how it's been read.. I lost sleep over this 😅
@Chris-BognorRegis
Жыл бұрын
My goodness son I entirely understood the whole update for a change. Like you said overthinking and not using common sense. I totally agree with your conclusion. At the end its to be enjoyed and some rules do the complete opposite. Love ya xxx
@Tabletop_Standard
Жыл бұрын
One small but of text and all this fuss 😅 cheers Pa love ya xxx
@44theastessex
Жыл бұрын
Getting into AT,and having played FoW, the centre point rule seems similar to how FoW does front armour. You draw a line across the front of the tank and if you're not behind it, you're in the front. Leads to crazy looking stuff where it's clear you could have a side shot, but the rule is its against the front. The AT centre point rule is similar to my eyes and is an abstraction to make you turn your titans more, potentially exposing them more for engaging gameplay.
@Tabletop_Standard
Жыл бұрын
It would make more sense to me if they hadn't already provided arc templates to work all that out 🤷🏼♂️
@ChristopheW88
Жыл бұрын
Wow, that live chat with GW is clear as mud 🤦♂️
@Tabletop_Standard
Жыл бұрын
I got what I came for 😄
@paulgibbons2320
Жыл бұрын
Very interesting. Good of you to respond. I have problems getting the chuffing corridor arcs lined up as it is. I think I'd have real issues this way of playing/interpretation. The way I've posed the model on the base makes it very hard to judge the front of the model. I think hex bases would have massively helped the game although probably would not have looked as good.
@Tabletop_Standard
Жыл бұрын
Good point about hexes but have to agree they wouldn't look as good at all :)
@schoon8654
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for helping to clear this up!
@Tabletop_Standard
Жыл бұрын
😆 rest assured this isn't cleared up. But it is interesting. I'm not finished with it yet 🙃
@schoon8654
Жыл бұрын
@@Tabletop_Standard Perhaps better to say that it's as clear as it's going to get for now...
@CoverSlaves
Жыл бұрын
@@schoon8654 Highlighted for sure
@ArgonautJM
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for that Chris. I'm with you (mostly), you should be able to target a model if a part of it is within your arc of fire. I reckon your live chatter was using the void shield thingy as a bit of a crutch. Basically saying that the base represents the void shields, which are a bubble round the Titan, ie the base IS the void shield and thus you can hit the voids because you can see the base. However, this doesn't help us if the voids are down as the base isn't the Titan. I'd want to treat kinda like you do with cover, so if you can see any part of the model, you can hit it but, this probably brings its own problems!
@Tabletop_Standard
Жыл бұрын
I think there's an element of over thinking things sometimes 😁
@Jamsiedude
Жыл бұрын
The previous sentence changes it all. IF it is not obvious. If there is any part of the Titan in the arc it it OBVIOUS you can hit it.
@Tabletop_Standard
Жыл бұрын
That's how I see it bud
@mi7evn326
Жыл бұрын
Good work for bringing this to light and trying to get to the bottom of it. I've always treated it the way you've played it, not played anyone else who has been contrary to this either
@Tabletop_Standard
Жыл бұрын
Took me by surprise mate, first time I'd heard of it 4 years in 😅
@philiphutchinson32
Жыл бұрын
I'm honestly baffled at the reaction to this rule. There are plenty of unclear or perverse rules in AT if you really read the detailed wording and the ruleset overall is not at all precisely worded. But this just isn't one of those cases. There's only one justifiable interpretation of this bit of the rules in my view - the centre of the target's base must be in the firing arc stated on the weapon that is firing and if it's not, you can't hit. There's really no other interpretation of this rule that can be justified based on the actual text. Of course people are free to disregard this and apply a different rule if they don't like it. Although there are only two "cut and dried" options in my view. Either the rule as it's written (centre of base) or instead any part of the base (which is equally unambiguous but very clearly not what is written). I'd be happy to play either - this isn't tax law, it's toy soldiers, and I play it for fun, not to have arguments. The problem is that any other approach than these two amounts to a subjective judgement on the look and feel. It's amusing to see people argue the rule is ambiguous (it's not) and then start talking about adding modifiers to hit when most of the base is in another arc (which is not supported by the text at all). I'm surprised at the visceral reaction to this because while the text as written creates some odd looking situations, that's equally true of the "sliver of the base" approach. This is just always the way with games that involve this level of abstraction and that attempt to model firing arcs - as soon as there are hard cutoffs, the edge cases close to the cutoff point look odd, and of course in reality there usually wouldn't be such a hard edge to these things, but for a game played with dice and miniatures these kind of abstractions are necessary (the Flames of War example that was mentioned in the comments is another instance of this). Personally I can't see why the rules as written "feel" wrong to people really. But I'd be happy to play differently so long as it's clear in advance. Sometimes I feel sorry for games designers because while they often do make mistakes and write unclear or contradictory rules (quite a lot in the case of the Specialist Games studio!), this just isn't one of those cases to my mind, yet still many people find it unclear.
@Harleqyin
Жыл бұрын
I saw this on FB. Pretty funny. AT rules are so bloody clunky.
@Tabletop_Standard
Жыл бұрын
Do you think? I thought they're generally pretty good, the books lasted well enough for a GW game
@niners.own.the.packers
Жыл бұрын
I feel the rule is designed as it says, if the arc is not clear. Titan A can target titan B as part of the titan is in arc. Reverse the target. Titan B fires but is not certain if the target is being hit in the front or side. Now apply the centre base rule. In this case it will hit the side If the centre if the base is on the line, you can choose
@Tabletop_Standard
Жыл бұрын
Yeah I see could be, they really should have stopped at use the arc template. And maybe add a few picture examples, for simple primates like me
@Trajann
Жыл бұрын
Alright I’ll toss my 2 cents in. If you measure to center, then there is literally no difference between a knight Titan and a warlord Titan in terms of ability to move away from LoS (sans height of model). That seems ridiculous that a model that is five times wider then an other uses the same point of los. Measure to base is better and leads to better games
@Tabletop_Standard
Жыл бұрын
That's interesting 🤔
@ianjankus8090
Жыл бұрын
Just started playing last week. Got 2 small games under my belt.
@Tabletop_Standard
Жыл бұрын
Good man, hope you're enjoying it!
@jamespeterson9620
Жыл бұрын
I see no harm in the center needing to be in arc. It forces a level of one on one attention for titans. this is the clipping rule equivalent in WHFB or other rank and flank games. You should not be able to fire upon a "sliver" you need to have your titans position dedicated to attack your available target and this does make positioning so much more important and forces a lot more flank shots when titans pivot to shoot enemies with their "center" in arc. Also I have to assume the "help" chat is like the Games Workshop store staff. Ask a group of them the same question and get a group of answers. nothing official about it.
@CoverSlaves
Жыл бұрын
It's a bit more punitive for corridor, but ya must arcs being like 90 it's not that punitive, especially considering every titan but the warmaster can upgrade corridor arc to normal arc. Easy house rule, allow targeting stuff that's not majority front arc but if the middle is side -1BS.
@withershadow3904
Жыл бұрын
Titanicus is the best GW game no one plays.
@Tabletop_Standard
Жыл бұрын
Just the cool kids mate 😎 👌🏻
@withershadow3904
Жыл бұрын
@@Tabletop_Standard the God-Machine walks. It also preaches! 🙌
@Tabletop_Standard
Жыл бұрын
🙌🏻
@BigLDeuces
Жыл бұрын
It has to be center in arc. Any other interpretation breaks melee combat. Also, it’s fairly clear in the rulebook, not sure why people think it’s up for interpretation. The GW live chat is an intern and not an official FAQ. That’s like saying “my store manager said it’s this way”.
@jamespeterson9620
Жыл бұрын
Im with you on this one. This seems like the community making their own "easy rules"... Having the center in arc forces the titans of different base sizes to dedicate more arc to the enemy. This is hardly an issue when titans are at range and your "arc" easily contains the target. The example given here is looking only at circumstances of melee and that provides a distorted context of the discussion. Close fighting should be even more strongly stated perhaps that you must "face your target", like you are dedicated to the close combat... not just clipping combat.
@Tabletop_Standard
Жыл бұрын
I don't find the wording clear at all. And I'm completely torn between both interpretations. Yeah the live chat is a staff member. If more people email the AT FAQ team they may release it. it's clearly divided opinion
@jamespeterson9620
Жыл бұрын
@@Tabletop_Standard The wording isn't clear... Which is a GW special. I do think the intent is more clear than we want to give credit for. But rules as intended and RAW is a perennial flower...
@Tabletop_Standard
Жыл бұрын
@@jamespeterson9620 Sadly I'm not clever enough to work these things out
@jamesturner998
Жыл бұрын
A couple of friends drew this 'issue' to my attention and while I would say that Adeptus Titanicus could benefit from a similar iterative tightening up of the rules and the wording of the rules by the Development Team as Age of Darkness, Age of Sigmar and Warhammer Underworlds, but this can "Warlord A shoot Warlord B" thing seemed to be entirely based on the manufacture of an additional step in the Check Firing Solution section of the Combat Phase rules by certain players. I'd like to think that this resulted from some players misinterpreting rules as written and rules as intended, because to me, Warlord A could obviously shoot Warlord B and there was no need to consider the centre of the base at all.
@Tabletop_Standard
Жыл бұрын
Mate I'd only had it brought to my attention, after 4 years. But yeah an element of over thinking perhaps.. I can happily go back to my fast and loose games again 😁
@attiladukai2121
Жыл бұрын
We play it that any part of the targets base is valid for the arc, BUT. If 25% of the targets base is NOT in the arc -1 to hit. 50% is -2.
@Tabletop_Standard
Жыл бұрын
That's fair enough.. We'll just play any part of the base counts as in. But cover comes from the view of the weapon for us so that all depends on the good old squating down and having a gander. I'm going to do a follow up on this
@attiladukai2121
Жыл бұрын
@@Tabletop_Standard well you got the point there. Our rule is only good for open areas, because usually targets are behind cover 90% of the time. We are testing a rule where more than 75% of your target is behind cover or out of arc, only a natural 6 is a hit... it's more realistic, but it is not the best thing to be honest.
@CoverSlaves
Жыл бұрын
Interactions with beam too may be weird.
@neiladdison3458
Жыл бұрын
This is how i wpuld work it. If the centre is in arc, no modifier, if not then apply cover rules (50% visible, then 25%)
@Tabletop_Standard
Жыл бұрын
I just prefer if it's in it's in 🙃
@tompayne4945
Жыл бұрын
@@Tabletop_Standard no such thing as just the tip eh Chris? Eh?! 🤓👌
@Tabletop_Standard
Жыл бұрын
😄
@desc4405
Жыл бұрын
I don’t understand what is confusing about this - the center of the base of the target needs to be within your firing arc for it to be a valid shot. The fact that everyone has been playing it wrong doesn’t matter.
@Tabletop_Standard
Жыл бұрын
Well apparently it doesn't
@desc4405
Жыл бұрын
@@Tabletop_Standard according to the FAQ guy? They make mistakes. Hopefully it gets clarified in an official FAQ
@ArnolddeGans
Жыл бұрын
Goblin Games shipping info "We are not currently shipping outside of the UK." .. that's to bad .....
@geertbeekman8680
Жыл бұрын
they talk about the center of the base only in the cause if it is on the line off two weapon fire arcs and then the sentence is closed and a new on begins in the new line they are not saying anny thing about the centre of the base else it would been writen as "If the centre of the target is not within the weapons fire arc, the attack is wasted"
@KT-pv3kl
Жыл бұрын
titan weapons level entire city blocks so even a grazing hit or near miss can cause devastating damage. it is illogical to assume only the center point matters for determining if a weapon can hit. I play titanicus like I play bfg. the center matters only for determining where the arcs are located on the base of the model and as soon as a weapon can target the base of a titan it can hit. wether its a side or frontal hit then gets determined by the facing of the enemy model. in the first example both scenarios are clear frontal hits in my interpretation of the rules.
@kurtl8425
Жыл бұрын
I certainly agree with you that’s the spirit of the rule.
@Tabletop_Standard
Жыл бұрын
Yeah man totally but once things are around I've got to look into it 🕵♂️
@davidsifford
Жыл бұрын
BFG! That's probably why I've been playing the rules the same way as this video concludes without even thinking about it.
@richardokeeffe8375
Жыл бұрын
Here we go!! Yeah A cannot shoot B by the rules. Very clear ruling. But I play it as ‘any part of the base’ being in because I like fun
@Tabletop_Standard
Жыл бұрын
Why can I not see as clear as others? Why isn't it just making perfect sense to me?
@richardokeeffe8375
Жыл бұрын
@@Tabletop_Standard I feel like the rule is clear from technical writing the way it reads to me. Just use the centre to show which arc you’re in. From a gameplay perspective, where is the centre exactly? How ready to determine in a game? How can they be next to each other but out of arc? So I play the fast and lose adaptation at home’
@Tabletop_Standard
Жыл бұрын
Exactly this, it all seems very conflicting.
@marcmiddleton2277
Жыл бұрын
I would say if the center is out of arc then do a 25% cover or something. You can't torso twist to get the full target in arc.
@kurtl8425
Жыл бұрын
That’d be fine for a house rule. However, a well written rule set should allow two strangers to build armies to a particular point value in advance, show up to a shop or convention and shake hands and then play a friendly game without having to create ad hoc rules or get into arguments over unclear rules.
@Tabletop_Standard
Жыл бұрын
I'm happy with it's in or out, that'll do
@marcmiddleton2277
Жыл бұрын
I was just thinking of realistic aspect of it.
@imacie
Жыл бұрын
There are two sentences, not one. It's called punctuation. You don't imply the last sentence is correlated to the previous. It's a rule book not a novel. A part of the model is within the arc so the model is within the arc, however less than 50% of the model is within arc so there is the possibility of -2 to hit.
@stevenray8737
Жыл бұрын
I'd assume that second part is referencing what weapons can be targeted on Titan B( left, right and carapace ). So in both cases the center of the model is just outside the front arc, so the carapace and left-arm weapons wouldn't be targetable but the right-arm would be.
@BigLDeuces
Жыл бұрын
This interpretation has no basis in the rules, there is no difference in the left-arm arc and right-arm arc.
@stevenray8737
Жыл бұрын
@@BigLDeuces Are you referring to titan A or titan B in the example?
@-Joe--
Жыл бұрын
Good discussion! When you mention looking down the gun barrel for line of site. How do you manage that on models with magnetized arms? Movement of gun allowed? What if the barrel has moved during play? Also, for range. Do you measure from the end of the weapon or the base
@Tabletop_Standard
Жыл бұрын
Range is base to base mate and look at the joint where the gun meets the arm.
@-Joe--
Жыл бұрын
@@Tabletop_Standard thanks. We did a game recently and we used the corruptions and psi titan for the first time. So we had nothing but mush left in our brains for these questions 😀
@Tabletop_Standard
Жыл бұрын
@@-Joe-- My brains been mush for years 😁 Check out my how to play list it's not the worse way of learning the basics
@-Joe--
Жыл бұрын
I watched all of that and quite a few battle reports. Until last weekend I was like "why do these guys keep making mistakes, they're pro's". Then I played full rules for the first time 😀 We just debating edge cases like your arcs. In fact. It started cos someone modeled a warlord facing off to the right. So when I sneaked a warhound to his flank, it turned out I was in his front arc. Hilarity ensued...
@Tabletop_Standard
Жыл бұрын
🤣🤣🤣 Pros?! Ha ha na just idiots with a camera mate.
@foulpilgrim5285
Жыл бұрын
Did they ever email back? I'm interested in hearing them expound on what the live chat stated. Looking through the comments I was really surprised to see how many players were willing to die on this "50%" hill. Especially when the term 50% isn't ever specifically stated in the two sentences they seem to be getting hung up on. A very odd hill to die on, indeed.
@Tabletop_Standard
Жыл бұрын
Na no reply bud just goes to the team and if they see fit, they'll update the FAQ. Live chat is fine, but like a lot say it's just the opinion of that staff member and not an official faq answer. I may make another vid on this it's fascinating to say the least
@matthewrumsey356
Жыл бұрын
I still don’t like the rules about walking over terrain and of falling. Some of it almost seems like they started writing the rules with cm in mind rather than inches.
@CoverSlaves
Жыл бұрын
100% agree, the falling and stepping both pretend titans are like twice as tall as they are, warlord stepping over 5 inch tall terrain is just silly. Also agreed on the falling, for some reason titans just double in height when they fall over and it's really weird.
@matthewrumsey356
Жыл бұрын
@@CoverSlaves we had to house-rule the stepping to make it seem realistic. The falling we didn’t though (probably will) because we were trying to see if maybe it was a a stumble and fall. 🤷🏼😂
@CoverSlaves
Жыл бұрын
@@matthewrumsey356 it isn't because it stumbles in a random direction then falls. People also play that it ignores shields but it doesn't, only a result of 10 on the chart goes through voids.
@TheRhandolph
Жыл бұрын
I say you can fire, it looks silly having just under half a massive titan infront of your guns and saying no. It is rules lawyerism versus common sense.
@Tabletop_Standard
Жыл бұрын
This is the consensus. It's even been said by the games creater in the pinned comment at the top 😁
@CoverSlaves
Жыл бұрын
I don't think ignoring it is the answer, FAQ it sure but a weird interaction with a random GW employee isn't exactly winning anyone over.
@theserpentlodge3723
Жыл бұрын
I spotted this a few years back and discussed it with various gaming groups, but no one plays it that way. The question I had was that if only part of the enemy model is in arc, can you only hit that part of the Titan?
@Tabletop_Standard
Жыл бұрын
That's how we play it? But then you can argue LOS is from the weapon. It's a mine field 😄
@theserpentlodge3723
Жыл бұрын
@@Tabletop_Standard I meant people play your interpretation. It works and I think more restrictions on firing would make the game less fun.
@viridisxiv766
Жыл бұрын
common sense trumps all. does it look like he could probably shoot him from there? yes? then he can shoot him. dam the rules and roll the dice! if its a pick up game just clarify it with your opponant before hand.
@Tabletop_Standard
Жыл бұрын
It's my duty to delve into these things bud 🕵♂️
@Based_Lord_Humongous
Жыл бұрын
Rules as Written supercedes all sorry not sorry don't @ me
@Tabletop_Standard
Жыл бұрын
That's fine but I don't understand the rules that are written 😵💫
@lucaswatson1913
Жыл бұрын
That interpretation of the rule is shit and unfun, I and my regular opponents will be ignoring it as it is unfun The game is ours at the end of the day to play as we wish
@Tabletop_Standard
Жыл бұрын
Yeah exactly that bud as I always say play it your way. I do but I like to explain any changes I make in my games. This won't be one of them 😁
Пікірлер: 108