Big problem with gallant is though he#s cc exclusive in shooty edition. Turn 1 he won't be doing anything worthwhile while even then too many ways enemy can stop it doing anything worthwhile. Chaff can't prevent guns hitting target. Gallant they can prevent charging anything but chaff though.
Plus i find myself often either finding better use for 2 cp or there's 3 other relics i want to take(and if i have cp battery ig commander can take max 2 knight relic anyway)
I actually think paragon gauntlet is best served on a warden or errant where you won't waste the reaper chainsword (because there is no reason to use any other CC weapo) like a gallant.
That is good point. Those weapons are already bit of dubious due to stomp attacks and with relic fist you pay for chainsword you don\t use like ever.
That's been where I have been planning to put that relic if I take it. But it's hard to fit relic fists when there's Cawl's wrath, 2+ save and endless fury. Even sanctuary and banner inviolate are cool. Been thinking of gallant+warden+errant trio with banner inviolate and sanctuary amongst them. Landstrider warlord trait and that would be fun little h2h oriented raven lance I might play sometimes. All 3 rerolling 1's in fight phase and +2" to advance and charge moves and CHAAAARGE!
Agreed, I would be more inclined to take the Paragon Gauntlet on a Warden or a Gallant if there were more Knights and Titanic units in my meta or if I decided I wanted Raven's extra mobility and didn't need Endless Fury's extra firepower, otherwise it's a bit overkill. As is, a Krast Warden with a Thunderstrike Gauntlet is more than enough melee wise to take care of most heavy non-Titanic threats and given Endless Fury it's even better at anti-infantry.
GreatGranpapy wrote: Is it worth shelling out for meltaguns on Warglaives and Gallants?
Gallants, sure. They are a good place to put Landstrider, which means they are going to be advancing a fair amount. Full Tilt is a must on them. Might as well bust something else when they get there.
Melta on Warglaives is... Okay. Melta matches their primary gun in function. But they also tend to get and stay in combat so... Idk if worth. You will sometimes have that real good game where they make up their points in that one round.
tneva82 wrote: Which doesn't help. Where-ever it is question is does he want to take out warglaive or gallant. Only way you can really alter that is by having one so far it's not a threat so opponent will shoot at other but that's not a good idea...warglaive too far to threaten might just as well be dead
You are overthinking it. Or have never played with appropriate terrain. Either or both.
Armigers move 14”, which means they can stay close to 12” move Knight no matter where it goes. And who targets a unit they can barely see behind a much bigger unit right there in front? Unless you play on Planet Bowling ball and think “behind” means “in front of”.
I tried oathbreaker missile strategem and I have to say, I don't think its worth it. My opponent had a IG warlord with grand strategist and Kurov's artifact. He would have had tons of additional CP so I tried to snipe that warlord away.
I spent the 2CP, and then I missed with my missile... Not only did I feel the loss of that 2CP very keenly, I realised that even if I had hit, I still could have failed to wound on a 1, and even if I wounded, I had to roll 4 or higher on my d6 wound to kill him.
There were just too many things that had to align in order for that 2cp to be worth it. If I had CPs coming out of my ears, maybe that would be worth it. Even then, I don't know. I could have easily aimed that missile at a non-character target and it still would have been fine.
Maybe if that character was so so central to the strategy of my opponent's list, then it might be worth it, and even then, there is a fair chance you will fail. Factoring failure to hit and failure to wound, and then needing a 4+ damage roll to kill a 4 wound character, the chances of your strategy's success is worse than 50%. Would you spend 2cp on a worse than 50% chance? >_<
Eldenfirefly wrote: I tried oathbreaker missile strategem and I have to say, I don't think its worth it. My opponent had a IG warlord with grand strategist and Kurov's artifact. He would have had tons of additional CP so I tried to snipe that warlord away.
I spent the 2CP, and then I missed with my missile... Not only did I feel the loss of that 2CP very keenly, I realised that even if I had hit, I still could have failed to wound on a 1, and even if I wounded, I had to roll 4 or higher on my d6 wound to kill him.
There were just too many things that had to align in order for that 2cp to be worth it. If I had CPs coming out of my ears, maybe that would be worth it. Even then, I don't know. I could have easily aimed that missile at a non-character target and it still would have been fine.
Maybe if that character was so so central to the strategy of my opponent's list, then it might be worth it, and even then, there is a fair chance you will fail. Factoring failure to hit and failure to wound, and then needing a 4+ damage roll to kill a 4 wound character, the chances of your strategy's success is worse than 50%. Would you spend 2cp on a worse than 50% chance? >_<
Depending on how important it is to kill whatever it is you are shooting at with that missile, you could always throw another CP for a reroll in there.
Not saying you should, but just that you could. It's an option.
tneva82 wrote: Which doesn't help. Where-ever it is question is does he want to take out warglaive or gallant. Only way you can really alter that is by having one so far it's not a threat so opponent will shoot at other but that's not a good idea...warglaive too far to threaten might just as well be dead
You are overthinking it. Or have never played with appropriate terrain. Either or both.
Armigers move 14”, which means they can stay close to 12” move Knight no matter where it goes. And who targets a unit they can barely see behind a much bigger unit right there in front? Unless you play on Planet Bowling ball and think “behind” means “in front of”.
SJ
With the way 8th ed LOS rules work not often you can get LOS blocked. And for that being close to the bigger knight is irrelevant.
As to "who targets...". The ones who would target even if they were on the other side of the table if the armiger is bigger priority. Only way gallant will provide protection is is by being bigger priority by being higher ratio of "threat and viable target to stop". Ie not only gallant is a threat but enemy can realistically try to deal with. If he has average firepower to take out warglaive but not gallant and warglaive is about to hit him then he will shoot it. AND THEN BEING BEHIND IS IRRELEVANT! Gallant can provide no protection LOS wise to the warglaive. It has huge open area between legs. Remember even tiny sliver of open line from any part of enemy to any part of warglaive and LOS is there and you can shoot 100% efficiently. This means btw if enemy shoots straight from front of rhino it can see THROUGH rhino by the hole below it caused by tracks raising hull a bit from ground...Incidentally this means you need to turn rhino sideway relative to enemy if you want to use it to block LOS. Alas gallant isn't bulky enough to block 100% of armiger regardless of how you turn it. So whether you are behind or front of gallant is actually 100% irrelevant. It does not matter in terms of LOS.
If warglaive is behind LOS blocking terrain then yes gallant will shot at but then position relative to gallant is irrelevant. You were protected by terrain. Not by gallant. Or you were protected by being too far to charge enemy while gallant has range but that's bad situation for you.
tneva82 wrote: Which doesn't help. Where-ever it is question is does he want to take out warglaive or gallant. Only way you can really alter that is by having one so far it's not a threat so opponent will shoot at other but that's not a good idea...warglaive too far to threaten might just as well be dead
You are overthinking it. Or have never played with appropriate terrain. Either or both.
Armigers move 14”, which means they can stay close to 12” move Knight no matter where it goes. And who targets a unit they can barely see behind a much bigger unit right there in front? Unless you play on Planet Bowling ball and think “behind” means “in front of”.
SJ
With the way 8th ed LOS rules work not often you can get LOS blocked. And for that being close to the bigger knight is irrelevant.
As to "who targets...". The ones who would target even if they were on the other side of the table if the armiger is bigger priority. Only way gallant will provide protection is is by being bigger priority by being higher ratio of "threat and viable target to stop". Ie not only gallant is a threat but enemy can realistically try to deal with. If he has average firepower to take out warglaive but not gallant and warglaive is about to hit him then he will shoot it. AND THEN BEING BEHIND IS IRRELEVANT! Gallant can provide no protection LOS wise to the warglaive. It has huge open area between legs. Remember even tiny sliver of open line from any part of enemy to any part of warglaive and LOS is there and you can shoot 100% efficiently. This means btw if enemy shoots straight from front of rhino it can see THROUGH rhino by the hole below it caused by tracks raising hull a bit from ground...Incidentally this means you need to turn rhino sideway relative to enemy if you want to use it to block LOS. Alas gallant isn't bulky enough to block 100% of armiger regardless of how you turn it. So whether you are behind or front of gallant is actually 100% irrelevant. It does not matter in terms of LOS.
If warglaive is behind LOS blocking terrain then yes gallant will shot at but then position relative to gallant is irrelevant. You were protected by terrain. Not by gallant. Or you were protected by being too far to charge enemy while gallant has range but that's bad situation for you.
So it’s the lack of tall line of sight blocking terrain, again. No point arguing, then.
Eldenfirefly wrote: Yeah, but IK can do alot with 3 cps. >_< That's 3 rounds of rotate ion shield. lol
Well good thing is it's not quaranteed 3CP as you could you know succeed first time
But yeah it's not auto usage. Raven can actually benefit bit more of that than most as the castellan will likely be using their strategem as well so you get to reroll 1's anyway. Gives very good hit chance, nearly quaranteed to wound and you only need command reroll 1/3 of times vs 4 wound character. Sure then it's 4-5 CP but then again that raven strategem you want to use often anyway to make castellan just sick shooter.
It's situational strategem. You need good target like that CP farm commander or ork weirdboy if they only have 1(orks are often hamstrung without da jump and even 2-3 wounds is huge blow to weirdboy) for it to be worth it IMO.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jeffersonian000 wrote: So it’s the lack of tall line of sight blocking terrain, again. No point arguing, then.
SJ
You realize right that the presence of gallant is then irrelevant? If armiger can hide behind terrain it does that equally well without gallant. Unless we are talking about REAL weird terrain that happens to be shaped EXACTLY so that it would be just not enough without gallant but that's like tailor made terrain for that usage...In 20+ years I have never seen such a terrain piece. Either terrain piece is too small it won't matter whether gallant is there or not or terrain piece is big enough armiger is able to hide behind whether gallant is there or not.
The gallant adds NOTHING to whether enemy can shoot. If there's LOS blocking terrain you can use it with armiger whether you are behind gallant or not. Actually being behind gallant can actually HURT armiger then as you will be further from terrain(as gallant is between terrain and you!) so there's larger angle from where enemy will be able to see from sideways. So actually gallant is actually pushing armiger "no you go open to be shot. I'm hiding here"
You seem to think if gallant is front of armiger that somehow blocks LOS but that's not how 8th ed LOS works. Remember. If ANY point of enemy can see ANY piece of armiger, regardless of how big either points are, he can shoot at armiger and there's no difference whether armiger is there or somewhere with no terrain whatsover anywhere.
Your army can be armiger or armiger and gallant and enemy will shoot or not shoot based on LOS same either way. One of these situations happen:
a) Terrain blocks LOS to both. Well duh then neither gets shot. Gallant added nothing to it though. Just makes required terrain piece to be even bigger to cover everything and makes it easier for enemy to go sideways to get LOS to the armiger that is further away from terrain due to gallant being in the middle
b) terrain blocks LOS to armiger but not to gallant. Well duh then gallant would get shot of course. But of course that means if there wasn't gallant nothign would get shot. Gallant did not make life of armiger easier.
c) terrain doesn't block LOS to either(very common btw if you don't custom make terrain. GW's premade terrain is often open enough might not as well exist). Then it comes to which enemy will prioritze. But again position to gallant here is irrelevant. You can be sideway/further away and gallant will still draw the shots just as well if it's bigger priority. Gallant won't be get shot if gallant is threat he wants and can stop. OF course if enemy remaining firepower is like 2 lascannons gallant won't be getting shot as even max result isn't enough to stop gallant while armiger would be blown. So armigers position is really relevant only if armiger is too far to be threat to enemy and that's not good. But armiger could be side of gallant for all it matters. What matters is both are in position to threaten enemy. But that protection gallant can provide even if they are 20" away from each other.
What do people think between getting a grand strategist / kurovs Aquila guard warlord against getting three warlord traits and relics for the knights? The knight relics and warlord traits are so great that having an extra couple is a huge buff
DoomMouse wrote: What do people think between getting a grand strategist / kurovs Aquila guard warlord against getting three warlord traits and relics for the knights? The knight relics and warlord traits are so great that having an extra couple is a huge buff
Plus even if you settle for 2 of both it means paying 4CP more which means IG battallion's 5CP is paid on relics/traits bar 1 so big help will be GS/KA. Before FAQ you would be short of CP's to really benefit from GS without TWO ally battallion(3+5+3=11-6=5). Now at least it will be 5+6+3-5=9 to start with so GS will generate extra 3 in average.
I take usually Cawl's wrath and endless fury and ion bulwark. Traits I can live with though sometimes landstrider. I can't get paragon fist or 2+ though with GS/KA. Well KA I can get with 1CP strategem.
Certainly one thing speaking against IG ally battallion.
DoomMouse wrote: What do people think between getting a grand strategist / kurovs Aquila guard warlord against getting three warlord traits and relics for the knights? The knight relics and warlord traits are so great that having an extra couple is a huge buff
I think you can sacrifice the 3rd WL trait, however, the choice you have to make is on the relics.
As for Grand Strategist, it all depends on whether or not you feel like you need the extra 3-4? CP a game, or whether you’re setup to be ok with it.
On warglaives abd meltas: lack of move and ignore heavy penalties on armigers along with may warglaives used in a close-range to assault units; I always add them. My gun knights are already clearing Chaff and my Errant is leading the warglaives to Close-in glory. The bonded oathsman strat is great as a counter charge to have them help him and they can shoot at the vehicles behind leftover chaff before charging in to sweep at the chaff or put extra melta shot into a vehicle before charging in to strike it.
On the matter of the Paragon Guantlet: it was discussed several pages back: should never be added to a gallant. Gallant can attack and clear most any type of unit with all the melee tools it has. The paragon makes the Reaper completely wasted points. Warden or errant are best places for the Paragon guantlet as both need to be relatively close to begin with and might as well add 5 points for a guantlet over a reaper, then if giving out extra relics might as well take the paragon. Errant is the true winner of paragon choice unless you are house taranis; they are the only ones with a relic thermal cannon(and it is frickin awesome too), and you probably would rather a warden have endless fury(unless you are putting it on a crusader)
Kommissar Kel wrote: On warglaives abd meltas: lack of move and ignore heavy penalties on armigers along with may warglaives used in a close-range to assault units; I always add them. My gun knights are already clearing Chaff and my Errant is leading the warglaives to Close-in glory. The bonded oathsman strat is great as a counter charge to have them help him and they can shoot at the vehicles behind leftover chaff before charging in to sweep at the chaff or put extra melta shot into a vehicle before charging in to strike it.
I also intend to always use Warglaives. All of my lists have involved a 1x3 Unit, all with Meltas for the purpose of Sally Forth. Showing up t2 and popping 1-2 Vehicles with ranged fire and then charging more feels quite satisfying.
As i use raven the heavy on heavy stubbers is less of issue. Thougg lack of firepower :s issue. I just find needing to drop knight to get meltaguns and that's too pricey. Melta works better for knight allies
DoomMouse wrote: What do people think between getting a grand strategist / kurovs Aquila guard warlord against getting three warlord traits and relics for the knights? The knight relics and warlord traits are so great that having an extra couple is a huge buff
Plus even if you settle for 2 of both it means paying 4CP more which means IG battallion's 5CP is paid on relics/traits bar 1 so big help will be GS/KA. Before FAQ you would be short of CP's to really benefit from GS without TWO ally battallion(3+5+3=11-6=5). Now at least it will be 5+6+3-5=9 to start with so GS will generate extra 3 in average.
I take usually Cawl's wrath and endless fury and ion bulwark. Traits I can live with though sometimes landstrider. I can't get paragon fist or 2+ though with GS/KA. Well KA I can get with 1CP strategem.
Certainly one thing speaking against IG ally battallion.
Grand strategist can proc on itself, so it's 4 or 5 command points, and with the Aquila gives you ~50% of the CP your opponent spends too. It's not inconsequential at all and IK can certainly spend them.
raverrn wrote: No, but when you get a CP back, that CP has the potential to proc another free one. It gives you more than 33% back.
Ah that is what you meant. Still 5cp is bit thin. Also it prevents 3 knight relics which can be issue. If i had like shv and 2 bat detachments i probably would skip GS and take just aquilla. 19-1-3-1 is 14 plus more for strategems opponent use.
Cephalobeard wrote: That doesn't sound accurate, and I've not encountered any other person ever suggest that.
It's absolutely how the trait works. GS doesn't give back a secondary set of different CP, or other pseudo method. When you spend a CP you might gain a new one, and there's nothing that says you can't gain another when it's spent, or another or another.
Cephalobeard wrote: That doesn't sound accurate, and I've not encountered any other person ever suggest that.
It's absolutely how the trait works. GS doesn't give back a secondary set of different CP, or other pseudo method. When you spend a CP you might gain a new one, and there's nothing that says you can't gain another when it's spent, or another or another.
You quoted me but neglected the second half of my post where I explained I understood exactly what you had meant to say in greater detail.
The more I look at the warlord traits, I really don't see more than 2 that I would NEED every game, and you can change which ones you take each game.
The relics....goodness I would take 5 if I could, but the relic plasma on the castellan and either the paragon gauntlet or a 5++ in cc, or maybe a 2+ save.
TLDR there's a pretty strong case for 3 relics but I don't see 3 warlord traits being always useful.
Even so, you're trading grand strategist for:
A) extra relics
B) effectively you lose 1 CP if you take 3 relics and 3 warlord traits
OR
C) if you take 2 relics and 3 warlord traits, or 3 relics and 2 warlord traits, you gain 1 CP (-2 from spending only 1 on one of the stratagems but +1 on taking Kurov's)
OR
D) if you take 2 relics and 2 warlord traits, you gain 3 CP
So you say to yourself, do I want 3 more CP and one less relic/warlord trait, one less CP and one less relic and warlord trait, or do I want to keep grand strategist and have just 2 relics and 2 warlord traits?
It's actually not the easiest of questions, but it's one that has to be decided in your list building phase, as you can't typically change warlords from round to round in a tournament event (though from game to game in a friendly setting for play testing purposes, go for it!)
Mathematically speaking, if you're only trying to get the most command points, it's actually a little more complicated that you would think because, as has been pointed out, with grand strategist, the CP you gain becomes CP you can spend. Additionally, don't forget about Kurov's.
Someone smarter than me can do the math on this to find the breaking point, but simple math says that it is obviously worth 3 CP to take grand strategist alone if you have 9 CP at the time you begin deployment, as you would gain, on average, 3 CP during the game, and those CP could also be spent....etc. Mathematically the break even point for just Grand Strategist is 7 CP at the beginning of the game. If you have that many or more, take that as your warlord trait and it will, on average, give you 3 or more CP during the game. With Kurov's, that break point conservatively goes down to 6 and may go down to 5.
So, using some cookie math, I would say that if, after relics/warlord traits/pre-deployment command points, you have 6 or more CP, it is mathematically better to sacrifice the 3 CP and just take Grand Strategist.
Now you are, of course, also not getting that extra relic and warlord trait, so what's that worth? Up to you. Personally, in most of the knight lists I've drawn up, I start the game with 14-19 CP, then spend 6-7 on relics, so I'm looking at 7-13 CP. That's not even close to making it difficult to decide what I should do, as Kurov's + Grand Strategist (plus Vitas Veritae if I take a BA battalion) means that I recover stupid amounts of command points, and starting with more means that I can use them incredibly liberally (and I do).
TLDR: If I were a knights player, I would generally sacrifice at least 1 warlord trait, even if I had the option to take it. This means that Grand Strategist is generally very much more worthwhile than a single additional relic. And from the handful of games I've play as knights, they are so very very CP hungry. You won't regret having more command points and one less relic or warlord trait IMO
Cephalobeard wrote: That doesn't sound accurate, and I've not encountered any other person ever suggest that.
It's absolutely how the trait works. GS doesn't give back a secondary set of different CP, or other pseudo method. When you spend a CP you might gain a new one, and there's nothing that says you can't gain another when it's spent, or another or another.
You quoted me but neglected the second half of my post where I explained I understood exactly what you had meant to say in greater detail.
I think the best approach is to present everything in your army as a threat, all at once. Give your opponent lots of options, all of which are bad.
So I’d send warglaives ahead. Use cover if you can, do damage if you can, but don’t worry too much if they die – because that means something else didn’t die.
If I’ve got a Castellan with Cawl’s Wrath then I know my opponent really has to kill it, but if multiple other threats are coming in then they are going to have some hard choices. They can kill the armigers quite easily, but that means taking fire from my Castellan. And meanwhile I’ve also got a couple of other Questoris knights on their way in.
I haven’t prioritised buying meltas for my warglaives, but I wonder if I should. Oddly, they don’t have a rule to let them ignore the penalty for moving and firing the stubbers, meaning that they only hit on 4s. Meltas would hit on 3s. Even when they do hit, stubbers do next to nothing, while meltas might kill something from time to time. But on the other hand I expect my warglaives to spend a lot of their time in combat and/or dead, so I’m not sure there’s much value in sticking guns on them at all.
I’ll be taking my army to heat 1 of the UKGT soon, and haven’t yet managed to get in any practice games with it! The rules for the event say we have to pick our warlord trait and relic and write it on our army list, but we can pick whether to use stuff like Exalted Court before each game. That seems quite useful to me. I’ll only have the single Knight Lance with its +6 CPs, for a total of 9. Here’s the list:
Castellan with 4 missiles (to save points)
Warden with ironhail rocket pod
Errant with Fist
2 Warglaives with Stubbers
The Castellan will be Warlord, and will have Ion Bulwark and Cawl’s Wrath. Then I’ll probably take an extra relic and a bonus warlord trait on the other, so all three are characters. Endless Fury, the Paragon Gauntlet and 2+ armour save all have their appeal as relics. I’m less sure on warlord traits, though if I just want an extra character I could give one of them the trait that gives a CP and a reroll once per game – which is better than nothing. I could potentially take two relics and no extra warlord traits, or even give a both to a single knight – such as Paragon Gauntlet and Seneschal to the Errant and nothing for the Warden, if I face other knights.
One option would be to drop the Ironhail pod and make the Errant into a second Warden. That would probably improve my army a little bit, but I think I like the ironhail pod for taking out mortar squads, biovores etc. I’d be interested in any cnc, though I've decided I'm definitely not bringing a battalion (and to be honest there's no way I'm painting one in ten days!) so no need to point that out.
Cephalobeard wrote: That doesn't sound accurate, and I've not encountered any other person ever suggest that.
It's absolutely how the trait works. GS doesn't give back a secondary set of different CP, or other pseudo method. When you spend a CP you might gain a new one, and there's nothing that says you can't gain another when it's spent, or another or another.
You quoted me but neglected the second half of my post where I explained I understood exactly what you had meant to say in greater detail.
tneva82 wrote: What house? Remember raven armigers advance and shoot stubbers normally so only when you want to charge does heavy hurt. Though s3 still is meh
I'm going with Tanaris - because that's how my existing knights are painted. Part of the justification for going all-knights is that I think the Tanaris bonus is of greatest benefit when applied to lots of knights. Raven seems awesome for a single Castellan, which you'd spam the stratagem on, but otherwise not brilliant. I can live with having my stubbers miss a bit more, especially since I really don't expect them to do much even if they do hit.
I've considered painting my Castellan up as House Raven, to ally with my marines, but since I already had four knights painted as Tanaris, and since Tanaris are pretty good, I think that's the way to go.
Does paint scheme on knights matter that much? If I paint mine as Cadmus, is that what i am going to be stuck with? That feels less punishment for painting vs keeping them grey tide
GW, however, made some rules for their grand tournament or some nonsense about things painted like space marine chapters HAVE to be that chapter, etc, so just buyer beware if you're playing there.
My original knight theme was green & yellow. Not QUITE the questor imperialis theme(some minor differences) but very similar and as that faction didn't tempt and wanted mechanicum anyway to synergy with ad mech allies better decided to alter a bit. Airbrushed the yellow parts(only few armour plates) with red. Need to touch up some silver parts that got reddish but nothing too bad. And bonus the method was same I do airbrushed red anyway. Preshade, yellow, red. Put in darker red than my blood angels.
This way they LOOK more like mechanicum alligned and now I'm pretty sure there's no official house that looks same so I should be safe in any case.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
luke1705 wrote: It's actually not the easiest of questions, but it's one that has to be decided in your list building phase, as you can't typically change warlords from round to round in a tournament event (though from game to game in a friendly setting for play testing purposes, go for it!)
Oh really? Is that usual there? I don't recall attending event where I couldn't change. Default set is supposed to write but if you want to change them before deployment you are free to change it.
tneva82 wrote: My original knight theme was green & yellow. Not QUITE the questor imperialis theme(some minor differences) but very similar and as that faction didn't tempt and wanted mechanicum anyway to synergy with ad mech allies better decided to alter a bit. Airbrushed the yellow parts(only few armour plates) with red. Need to touch up some silver parts that got reddish but nothing too bad. And bonus the method was same I do airbrushed red anyway. Preshade, yellow, red. Put in darker red than my blood angels.
This way they LOOK more like mechanicum alligned and now I'm pretty sure there's no official house that looks same so I should be safe in any case.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
luke1705 wrote: It's actually not the easiest of questions, but it's one that has to be decided in your list building phase, as you can't typically change warlords from round to round in a tournament event (though from game to game in a friendly setting for play testing purposes, go for it!)
Oh really? Is that usual there? I don't recall attending event where I couldn't change. Default set is supposed to write but if you want to change them before deployment you are free to change it.
Interesting.
I don’t know if there’s a standard tournament structure as such. GW do their own thing entirely, apparently without reference to what anyone else is doing. So for instance they are using eternal war scenarios only. They’ve changed the rules on stratagems like exalted court since last year, as well as dropping from 2k to 1750.
Right now it’s obviously sensible to paint knights as your own scheme, so you can choose what house to play as. I went with Tanaris when they were first released, inspired by the mechanicus book from the 30k novel series, intending them to act as allies for my 30k Imperial fists. I was pretty nervous waiting to see what my rules would be! As it happens I’m pretty happy with 6+ FNP - which is definitely one of the top tier house options.
I'm glad I made my own house. That takes all confusion away, just specify which house I used when I wrote the list, and it's all good.
Changing houses before a match starts depending on your opponents list however, is a bit scummy. Will probably not happen too often though, since you chose your house when building your list, with warlord traits and such.
Oh house changing depending on opponent would be big no-go.
However at least here warlord traits and relics you can change before game so in tournaments I might or might not take relic or trait depending on what I need(for example I might not take landstrider against army that will be coming aggressively toward me anyway!).
It's so common here didn't even think it might not be standard in tournaments.
U02dah4 wrote: Well the question is whether "before the battle" constitues part of your list building or not which is up for interpretation.
Its pretty clear in the core rules:
Immediately before either player starts to deploy their
army, you can roll on the Warlord Trait table here to determine what
Warlord Trait your Warlord has. Alternatively, choose the trait that
most suits your Warlord’s temperament or style of war.
So it is a house rule to make it part of list building.
So, one of the biggest things I'm noticing about my knights is they go very well with my leman Russ list... Which was already very strong.
My biggest hurdle with my Russes was moving forward against the tide of my opponents army. Getting a Russ trapped in cc makes it noneffective. A crusader/warden + 2 Warglaives really helps apply forward pressure, while keeping a wall of t7/8 models. Small arms fire is pretty much negated. Add in hawkshrouds ability to overwatch and heroically intervene on top of my Russes ability to over watch on 5 and charging that list is scary.
If I can pick off my opponents anti tank early then I'm golden. My only issue is those pesky thunder hammer models. But that is what my paragon guantlet is for!
U02dah4 wrote: Well the question is whether "before the battle" constitues part of your list building or not which is up for interpretation.
Its pretty clear in the core rules:
Immediately before either player starts to deploy their
army, you can roll on the Warlord Trait table here to determine what
Warlord Trait your Warlord has. Alternatively, choose the trait that
most suits your Warlord’s temperament or style of war.
So it is a house rule to make it part of list building.
Not clear
Mustering your Army - listbuilding
Deployment- start of Game
Immediately before deployment - is it list building? Or have we moved beyond its not black and white.
There's no fixed rule - or if there is there's no consensus on how to apply it.
If you're going to an event, the events pack should say what to do. If not, ask the organisers.
If you're playing against friends, ask them. In reality you're probably putting your list together for that game with some idea what they are playing, so it might not make much difference when you pick your traits etc.
Is there anything to stop you using the Exalted Court stratagem to give a knight the Cunning Commander trait, effectively refunding the command point, and getting you the free re-roll?
Lord Damocles wrote: Is there anything to stop you using the Exalted Court stratagem to give a knight the Cunning Commander trait, effectively refunding the command point, and getting you the free re-roll?
No however thats only true if your only taking that as the single additional trait other wise it costs you 2CP for 1CP and a reroll so your buying a reroll thats locked to that model. Still not exactlly a terrible deal.
Lord Damocles wrote: Is there anything to stop you using the Exalted Court stratagem to give a knight the Cunning Commander trait, effectively refunding the command point, and getting you the free re-roll?
No, so even if you're not planning on taking a second warlord trait you should always take an Exalted Court Cunning Commander as there's no downside whatsoever.
I find myself reaching for Ion Bulwark and Landstrider though, so I'm not sure if Cunning Commander is really worth it as a third warlord trait. Especially for Guard armies that can have their actual Warlord as a Grand Strategist and just grab Ion Bulwark and Landstrider from stratagems.
Warden
Avenger gatling cannon, Reaper chain-sword, and Heavy stubber
Might get Helm of the Nameless Warrior but might hold off for the CP
2x Warglaives (one with Meltagun one with Heavy stubber)
2x Helverins (what's a Helverin anyway?
Whole list comes to 1997 points.
I actually like this. 5 drops, flexible, can deal with most targets. Has something that doesn't mind sitting back and camping objectives. Doesn't degrade quickly
DoomMouse wrote: Anyone like the krast relic, the headsman's mark? +1 (rarely +2) damage on dominus weapons when shooting a heavy sounds nice.
Also it could be nice on a crusader with Gatling cannons, battle cannon and stormspear pod.
Combine either with ion bulwark and you have a scary knight!
KRAST relic is the secret sauce to the top tier knight lists. That relic pairs very well with knight gallant stomp attacks and the exploding 6s strategem for house krast.
Warden
Avenger gatling cannon, Reaper chain-sword, and Heavy stubber
Might get Helm of the Nameless Warrior but might hold off for the CP
2x Warglaives (one with Meltagun one with Heavy stubber)
2x Helverins (what's a Helverin anyway?
Whole list comes to 1997 points.
Not fan of gallant with relic fist. Apart from having cc exclusive knight in shooty edition(thus being at mercy of opponent for offensive) puttingrelic fist there means you waste points on chainsword. Also you'll be stomping most of the time anyway. Now relic fist on warden? That's more like it. Though i would priorize relic gatling gun first
Warden
Avenger gatling cannon, Reaper chain-sword, and Heavy stubber
Might get Helm of the Nameless Warrior but might hold off for the CP
2x Warglaives (one with Meltagun one with Heavy stubber)
2x Helverins (what's a Helverin anyway?
Whole list comes to 1997 points.
Not fan of gallant with relic fist. Apart from having cc exclusive knight in shooty edition(thus being at mercy of opponent for offensive) puttingrelic fist there means you waste points on chainsword. Also you'll be stomping most of the time anyway. Now relic fist on warden? That's more like it. Though i would priorize relic gatling gun first
You want it on the Gallant as he has WS 2, A5 vs WS3 A4 on a standard knight.
Gallant is all about leveraging the maximum threat for the minimum spend on a knight. The guy can level most targets in one round of CC and costs 354pts.
You want it on the Gallant as he has WS 2, A5 vs WS3 A4 on a standard knight.
But he'll wreck targets anyway so you thus waste points on chainsword without really gaining much. Not many targets in game where you need it. Moost of the time you stomp anyway.
There's diminishing rate of returns. Once certain point no point adding more. Gallant can deal most of targets anyway and majority charges will be what enemy wants, ie ig infantry squads etc, that gallant has exceeded it naked. Warden meanwhile hasn't
I think two warglaives are better than a Gallant. They are obviously nowhere near as nasty in cc individually, but each has a decent gun and is pretty scary for its price.
The main thing is being able to be in two places at once. Often, the most important thing is tying up a unit in combat, or even just threatening to. You present your opponent with two problems instead of one.
I think they're quite well balanced tbh. Depends whether you want +1A and +1WS or to pay 40pts to trade those for a heavy flamer and Gatling cannon. Both seem viable.
Not fan of gallant with relic fist. Apart from having cc exclusive knight in shooty edition(thus being at mercy of opponent for offensive) puttingrelic fist there means you waste points on chainsword. Also you'll be stomping most of the time anyway. Now relic fist on warden? That's more like it. Though i would priorize relic gatling gun first
I see where your coming from. I'm not the most experienced player so a lot of what went into that decision was a rule of cool: "A massive fist that hits on 2s! Let's punch some fools!" but I understand it is perhaps not the most optimal choice.
A Gallant really only needs the Gauntlet if facing other Knights. 8 Damage is really good as 3 successful wounds will insta-kill an enemy Knight.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mandragola wrote: I think two warglaives are better than a Gallant. They are obviously nowhere near as nasty in cc individually, but each has a decent gun and is pretty scary for its price.
The main thing is being able to be in two places at once. Often, the most important thing is tying up a unit in combat, or even just threatening to. You present your opponent with two problems instead of one.
Warglaives are pretty good but their one weakness compared to the Gallant is that they cannot Withdraw, shoot and charge again. This can be particularly relevant if you have a House Trait that provides bonuses on the turn you charge.
I just got wrecked by Tau and it’s made me a little disillusioned with the Valiant.
2k points He brought 2 riptides, a stormsurge, broadside, marksmen, shadowsun some drones and 30 fire warriors.
I had a hawkshroud valiant, gallant, crusader. I put the 2+ save relic on the gallant with landstrider warlord trait, flamer relic on valiant with +1 invul save trait, and Gatling cannon on crusader. I took a batallion of AM with 2 mortar heavy weapon teams (9 mortars overall including in the infantry squads) and a vanguard of 3 culexus assassins.
Now if you look at the lists it’s kinda obvious that I brought a general all comers list while he built his list to shoot knights. I also had first turn with my +1 to the roll but was seized on. He killed my valiant first turn with a bit of shooting to spare. By turn 3 my knights were dead and I conceded.
What I’ve learned:
Defensive relics against tau are useless. If they want to focus something down they will. If I took paragon gauntlet on my gallant I could have killed the stormsurge turn 1 thanks to landstrider and a good charge roll. Would have saved me some 15 wounds to knights I took over the next 2 shooting phase.
Dominus knights will be focused down asap. They know you need to burn 3cp to rotate the shields. Valiant needs to be on the edge of your deployment zone whereas you can hang your castellan back and avoid anything range 36 or lower. My valiant took wounds from fire warriors turn 1 allowing him to activate the +1 to wound strat with his strength 9 weapons so most of his army had 2+ to wound vs toughness 8.
Oh man, it's not even close for me. Gallants beat the snot out of warglaives. I just came back from a game where my gallant tanked three shooting and charging, interrupted and killed two of them, then finished the other off in my turn. Paragon gauntlet relic, by the way, increases expected damage against a Russ or a knight in CC by 11, and makes deathgrip more reliable. Bargain.
Jean Borrower wrote: I just got wrecked by Tau and it’s made me a little disillusioned with the Valiant.
2k points He brought 2 riptides, a stormsurge, broadside, marksmen, shadowsun some drones and 30 fire warriors.
I had a hawkshroud valiant, gallant, crusader. I put the 2+ save relic on the gallant with landstrider warlord trait, flamer relic on valiant with +1 invul save trait, and Gatling cannon on crusader. I took a batallion of AM with 2 mortar heavy weapon teams (9 mortars overall including in the infantry squads) and a vanguard of 3 culexus assassins.
Now if you look at the lists it’s kinda obvious that I brought a general all comers list while he built his list to shoot knights. I also had first turn with my +1 to the roll but was seized on. He killed my valiant first turn with a bit of shooting to spare. By turn 3 my knights were dead and I conceded.
What I’ve learned:
Defensive relics against tau are useless. If they want to focus something down they will. If I took paragon gauntlet on my gallant I could have killed the stormsurge turn 1 thanks to landstrider and a good charge roll. Would have saved me some 15 wounds to knights I took over the next 2 shooting phase.
Dominus knights will be focused down asap. They know you need to burn 3cp to rotate the shields. Valiant needs to be on the edge of your deployment zone whereas you can hang your castellan back and avoid anything range 36 or lower. My valiant took wounds from fire warriors turn 1 allowing him to activate the +1 to wound strat with his strength 9 weapons so most of his army had 2+ to wound vs toughness 8.
Tau are basically the anti knights list and to be honest he probably could have taken a much nastier list than what it sounds like he took a fairly standard tau list to be honest.
Tau are basically the anti knights list and to be honest he probably could have taken a much nastier list than what it sounds like he took a fairly standard tau list to be honest. wrote:
His standard list has many more fire warriors and riptides armed with anti infantry guns. Still think that build would have beaten my army especially seizing first turn. But maybe I’d have lasted to turn 4-5.
All of this is just convincing me more and more that the Valiant is a trap. Its short range keeps it off the top tables. You will eventually run into a hard shooting list over the course of a GT. The RAVEN castellan can sit behind a terrain piece on the opposite side of the board and get a 50% obscured cover save. I think this is why there were like 3 castellans in the top 8 at the flying monkey GT.
The Valiant just has to be deployed right on your deployment edge because it is both sluggish and short ranged. If you get a bad deployment and get seized, there just isn't anything you can do.
raverrn wrote: You want the Paragon Gauntlet on the Knight that will make the most Deathgrips.
Gallant has the opportunity to and has the highest reliability of getting them off. Ergo he gets the relic.
Well. You give it to modei that gets least effective benefit from it. But of course you are free to waste efficiency. Your army
I beg to differ. The Gallant has more attacks and a higher WS, it gets more effective use of the weapon.
Gallant with normal thunderstrike is only "knocked down to 3+ WS, and is making 5 attacks vs other large targets.
Any gun+melee knight with paragon gets 3+ WS, and makes 5 attacks.
I already broke down the Gallant in melee with what weapon for which target several pages back.
So now we are down to the Gallant is wasting 30 points(reaper) as he will never use it if he has the Paragon, and in most lists you are spending 2 CPs in order to waste those points.
In matched play you can only deathgrip once per turn; you can do that just fine with a normal thunderstrike instead of the paragon. Dam 8 on the paragon is offset by the Gallant's extra attacks: the 3 to kill an enemy knight is only 4 with Thunderstrike. With the 5 attacks at 3+(non-Senechal), you are not going to need more than 1 deathgrip attack against most enemies to begin with as you have already hit them 2-3 times.
Now a Gun knight with paragon attacks exactly as well against a single target as a gallant with Thunderstrike, and the gun-knight needs it more if you are spending the 5 points on any guantlet.
Wulfey wrote: All of this is just convincing me more and more that the Valiant is a trap. Its short range keeps it off the top tables. You will eventually run into a hard shooting list over the course of a GT. The RAVEN castellan can sit behind a terrain piece on the opposite side of the board and get a 50% obscured cover save. I think this is why there were like 3 castellans in the top 8 at the flying monkey GT.
The Valiant just has to be deployed right on your deployment edge because it is both sluggish and short ranged. If you get a bad deployment and get seized, there just isn't anything you can do.
Got a battle report about the Valiant as well.
I went up against a similar Tau list as stated above, protecting for an upcoming tournament, ITC board, rules, scoring, etc.
Tau sept
50 Firewarriors
Darkstrider
Ethereal with unity through devastation and 6+ CP regen
15 Pathfinders
3 Pulse Accelerator drones
Longstrike with d6str 8 3 damage guns and seeker missiles
3 Hammerheads with the d6str 8 3 damage guns and seeker missiles
2 Riptides
Cadre Fireblade(s?)
Some markerlight dude who hit on 2s
Sacea markerlight guy so he could use a strategem
My list was:
Graia Forgeworld
24 Vanguard
10 Hoplites
2 Enginseers
House Taranis
Valiant with Iron Bulwark and armor of the sainted ion
Crusader with stormspeaer and Endless Fury, Warlord trait was +1 CP and free reroll
Styrix with twin rad cleanser run as a Freeblade with Legendary Hero
I gave my opponent first turn because I always practice tournament games going second. Turn one he brought down the Styrix who had a 3++. Hoplites were wiped by Smart missiles from the Riptides and Hammerheads. Firewarriors are hilariously good, I was very impressed, he brought it down with seeker missiles on the hammerheads to spare. My turn basically shot and killed Longstrike, killed Firewarriors, killed pathfinders that was it. Charged some firewarriors that had moved up to get into rapid fire of the Styrix and rinsed them.
Turn two I knew my Crusader was next on the chopping block, saved a reroll for my Taranis Strat, great insurance against alpha striking gunlines by the way! It's a nice way to turn the tide. Anyway he was brought down much the same way as the Styrix, Taranis strat didn't need a reroll and he got back up next turn on two wounds. Repaired him up to four, Machine Spirit Resurgent and he rinsed more firewarriors and a hammerhead. Valiant was stuck killing firewarriors and pathfinders, after this turn there were no firewarriors left and a five man squad of pathfinders in the back, the flamer did wonders at clearing infantry, with the stomps obviously. Vanguard were thin on the ground but doing consistent damage to dwindling number of Firewarriors, my Vanguard would be dead next turn though. I like Vanguard though, aggressive infantry for an aggressive army like Knights is important.
Turn three bye bye Crusader, took a little bit more to kill him than my opponent wanted (rolled three sixes when two ion shots came through) but he want down all the same). Valiant took a few wounds after rotating ion shields but nothing notable. Repaired him nearly to full during my turn thanks to a tailing enginseer, I think he only had one or two wounds missing? Anyway I was in range of the harpoon, one shot a hammerhead (always put the siege cannons on your harpoon target as insurance to get that final wound) and melted a Riptide with Conflag Cannon in a single flame, blew away Longstrike and the Ethereal with meltas, stomped on some pathfinders.
Turn four Taus support and CP had run out, I was down to a couple of CP myself but without consistent marker lights and strategem use the army began to fall apart. A handful of wounds came through, Valiant was down to 20 or so? Enginseer still tailing. Scorched the other riptide and battle cannons him bringing him down to three wounds, harpooned the last Hammerhead, dead (meltas as insurance) charged and killed the riptide, took a few wounds in overwatch down to 17.
Turn five there were some firewarriors left! They, along with some Pathfinders, shot and charged my Enginseer, along with a Cadre fireblade, he miraculously survived on one wound. I wish he hadn't because he was surrounded and I couldn't shoot the blob of Tau infantry so my Valiant just killed some stray markerlight guys instead along with a pathfinder that was hiding. Enginseers suck in combat, and he lived through my phase as well. Turn six he lived through yet another combat phase and my valiant finally came in but with ten or so infantry on the board it didn't matter, the Valiant couldn't combat them all to death.
Score was 27 to AdMech/Knights 21 to Tau.
I think folks run the Valiant wrong, giving him massive defenses does make a big difference and the one to two wounds repaired each turn along with Taranis is pretty crucial. My Valiant would have been down to 9 wounds had it not been for my AdMech repairs and Taranis instead of his comfortable 16 wound ending. If the opponent focuses him down and does manage to get him down turn one the other Knights need to be very deadly in shooting to punish that. I go in to each game expecting to lose a Knight turn one, I've considered running the Styrix as Taranis so he has the potential of getting back up in case/when he dies turn one, but I rarely have seen an army capable of killing him outright with his double reroll (Legendary Hero+CP reroll) 3++ so maybe I'll keep him as Freeblade, dunno. If I know for sure a knight is going to die I save a reroll for the Taranis strat, it is a massive game changer. Anyway, just putting this out there to show that the Valiant is good, if used properly and not focused turn one, I mean I could say the Styrix is trash because he literally killed nothing, but I know the knight and if he is ignored he is a beast, just because a knight dies turn one doesn't mean it's bad, that's the way turn one goes.
Taking the 2+ save on my Valiant would have prevented a single wound from a fire warrior’s roll of 5 to wound (6s were -1 ap). My valiant died turn one with 4 wounds overkill from stormsurge 1 shot only mortal wound missiles.
Grats on your win but it seems you were up against significantly less anti-armour.
The repairing enginseer is an interesting twist. I think that is a sharp idea if you aren't going to go hardcore CP farming. Most lists run the guard battalion for the 5+/5+ but I have alway wanted to try the repairs. The thinking in the admech thread is that STYGIES is the way to go so I am surprised you ran GRAIA.
But what does the valiant do that the castellan cant? If you are TARANIS then you aren't getting the reroll to wound flamer. But a TARANIS castellan can get the super plasma gun, and you have the repairs to offset the overcharging. I think the big takeaway is that TARANIS is really good. No other household has an answer to a 2000 point shooting list.
Jean Borrower wrote: Taking the 2+ save on my Valiant would have prevented a single wound from a fire warrior’s roll of 5 to wound (6s were -1 ap). My valiant died turn one with 4 wounds overkill from stormsurge 1 shot only mortal wound missiles. Grats on your win but it seems you were up against significantly less anti-armour.
I would love to face a Stormsurge over Longstrike+Hammerheads and Tau Firewarriors that can wound my Knights on threes, yes please. Imperalis Knights are... lacking anyways, no mortal wound protection, no possibility of ignoring damage, every wound hurts very badly with Imperalis Knights.
Traditional anti tank doesn't bother me as a Knights player as much as it has. Its the million shots that forces my 3+ armor or the multi wound decent ap (ap -1 or 2) decent rate of fire that gets me. The traditional Las Cannon or D3 high str high dmg high ap weapons don't do well against a Valiant or Styrix with a 3++, it just doesn't, the rate of fire is abysmal. So what killed the Valiant?
Not sure how you don't see four Hammerheads with longstrike being one of them as a lot of anti tank, but you know, its your dead Valiant.
Wulfey wrote: The repairing enginseer is an interesting twist. I think that is a sharp idea if you aren't going to go hardcore CP farming. Most lists run the guard battalion for the 5+/5+ but I have alway wanted to try the repairs. The thinking in the admech thread is that STYGIES is the way to go so I am surprised you ran GRAIA.
But what does the valiant do that the castellan cant? If you are TARANIS then you aren't getting the reroll to wound flamer. But a TARANIS castellan can get the super plasma gun, and you have the repairs to offset the overcharging. I think the big takeaway is that TARANIS is really good. No other household has an answer to a 2000 point shooting list.
I think consistency is what the Valiant does over the Castellan. Look at the Castellan weapons and then look at the Valiant Weapons. The Valiant will one shot anything that does not have an invuln, flat, the Castellan easily has that potential but can whiff, the reroll with the Harpoon is more reliable than d6 shots in this instance. The Flamer vs Plasma is that the Flamer removes a gate entirely (to hit gate) and has d6 more shots, but again range is sacrificed. I think both Knights are extraordinary and both are viable. Also the relic flamer isn't THAT good to give up Taranis haha.
As for Enginseers and repairs in general people think that one or two wounds a turn won't make a big difference but couple that with ignoring mortal wound strategem and House Taranis 6+++ and it adds up to be a lot of wounds over the course of a game. All totaled in that game I relayed I probably repaired/revived 14 wounds between the Crusader and Valiant alone (poor Styrix).
Jean Borrower wrote: Taking the 2+ save on my Valiant would have prevented a single wound from a fire warrior’s roll of 5 to wound (6s were -1 ap). My valiant died turn one with 4 wounds overkill from stormsurge 1 shot only mortal wound missiles. Grats on your win but it seems you were up against significantly less anti-armour.
I would love to face a Stormsurge over Longstrike+Hammerheads and Tau Firewarriors that can wound my Knights on threes, yes please. Imperalis Knights are... lacking anyways, no mortal wound protection, no possibility of ignoring damage, every wound hurts very badly with Imperalis Knights.
Traditional anti tank doesn't bother me as a Knights player as much as it has. Its the million shots that forces my 3+ armor or the multi wound decent ap (ap -1 or 2) decent rate of fire that gets me. The traditional Las Cannon or D3 high str high dmg high ap weapons don't do well against a Valiant or Styrix with a 3++, it just doesn't, the rate of fire is abysmal. So what killed the Valiant?
Not sure how you don't see four Hammerheads with longstrike being one of them as a lot of anti tank, but you know, its your dead Valiant.
I lost my valiant turn 1 before any repairs can be made. Yours went the distance. Why is it confusing that I faced more anti tank? Doesn’t mean I faced a better army. 2 riptides with anti armour loadout, stormsurge (again, anti-armour loadout), commander coldstar with quad fusion, and rail rifle broadsides is significantly more anti-tank than 4 tanks and 2 riptides. Mathematically Taranis would have left my Valiant with a 50% chance of being alive with 1 wound. So I’d then have to pay a cp for resurgence to have the chance to shoot some fire warriors with the non-relic flamer. Paying 2 cp for the Taranis strat is one of the biggest traps in the book as it’s only on a 4+. Then you’ll pay another cp for resurgence to then use your valiant at limited potential (because you have the base weapon).
Knights aren’t lacking. They were all over top tables at a gt. Valiant may be though.
I think you have a warped perspective. What if they blew up a Crusader turn one, he is almost the same point if you throw on a melta gun and missile and give the Valiant four missiles. Would you say the Crusader is lacking then? A Castellan would have died the same way as your Valiant. Doing nothing. You say it's a trap after a single game, I think that's silly.
I won't claim the Valiant is as good as the Castellan I also won't claim the Castellan is as good as the Valiant because I won't pretend to know it all. Both Knights have merits, just because you have not seen them personally doesn't mean they do not exist and does not mean the Knight is less viable. Castellan or Valiant, both are good, I've heard the same thing in other forums except that the Castellan is bad hearing horror stories about how little damage it does. I defended the Castellan as I do the Valiant, set expectations accordingly. Also Taranis strat is a trap too? Tell me what isn't a trap oh wise one.
Goldenemperor wrote: I think you have a warped perspective. What if they blew up a Crusader turn one, he is almost the same point if you throw on a melta gun and missile and give the Valiant four missiles. Would you say the Crusader is lacking then? A Castellan would have died the same way as your Valiant. Doing nothing. You say it's a trap after a single game, I think that's silly.
I won't claim the Valiant is as good as the Castellan I also won't claim the Castellan is as good as the Valiant because I won't pretend to know it all. Both Knights have merits, just because you have not seen them personally doesn't mean they do not exist and does not mean the Knight is less viable. Castellan or Valiant, both are good, I've heard the same thing in other forums except that the Castellan is bad hearing horror stories about how little damage it does. I defended the Castellan as I do the Valiant, set expectations accordingly. Also Taranis strat is a trap too? Tell me what isn't a trap oh wise one.
I said the Taranis strategem is a trap, the house itself is fine but not required. If you fail the 4+ roll you'll invest another CP to reroll, if it succeeds you'll spend a CP for resurgence. Up to 4 CP for a chance to shoot once. Trap if you're using it turn 1, usable if it's turn 5 and you're trying a last ditch effort to win the game. If you're making Hail Mary passes on turn 1 then it's very hard to regain control of the game. Also please note that I was not the one who called the Valiant a trap, though I did say I'm disillusioned with it.
I definitely intend to test it more. My opponent specifically tailored his list because he knew he was up against knights and didn't know if his all-comers Tau was up for it.
My crusader was out of range of most of his guns. He did so much damage because he popped Kauyon on Shadowsun which meant he couldn't move for any reason and still get the reroll to hit. So, yes, another crusader in place of the valiant would have served me better in this specific case. More testing required but losing a 600 point model without using it and still seeing no way of avoiding it has left a sour taste.
Goldenemperor wrote: I think you have a warped perspective. What if they blew up a Crusader turn one, he is almost the same point if you throw on a melta gun and missile and give the Valiant four missiles. Would you say the Crusader is lacking then? A Castellan would have died the same way as your Valiant. Doing nothing. You say it's a trap after a single game, I think that's silly.
I won't claim the Valiant is as good as the Castellan I also won't claim the Castellan is as good as the Valiant because I won't pretend to know it all. Both Knights have merits, just because you have not seen them personally doesn't mean they do not exist and does not mean the Knight is less viable. Castellan or Valiant, both are good, I've heard the same thing in other forums except that the Castellan is bad hearing horror stories about how little damage it does. I defended the Castellan as I do the Valiant, set expectations accordingly. Also Taranis strat is a trap too? Tell me what isn't a trap oh wise one.
I said the Taranis strategem is a trap, the house itself is fine but not required. If you fail the 4+ roll you'll invest another CP to reroll, if it succeeds you'll spend a CP for resurgence. Up to 4 CP for a chance to shoot once. Trap. Also please note that I was not the one who called the Valiant a trap, though I did say I'm disillusioned with it.
I definitely intend to test it more. My opponent specifically tailored his list because he knew he was up against knights and didn't know if his all-comers Tau was up for it.
My crusader was out of range of most of his guns. He did so much damage because he popped Kauyon on Shadowsun which meant he couldn't move for any reason and still get the reroll to hit. So, yes, another crusader in place of the valiant would have served me better in this specific case. More testing required but losing a 600 point model without using it and still seeing no way of avoiding it has left a sour taste.
All I will say is one round of shooting from a fully decked out Crusader with Endless Fury or a properly positioned Valiant/Castellan is enough to swing the game MASSIVELY in your favour, potentially winning it. For a 50/50 (higher with a reroll) I will buy that for a dollar. It's just extra insurance in case I don't go first, or I do lose that Knight turn one, whatever the case is.
so how is everyone finding warglaives and helverins? so far my warglaives are good for dying, really good at it, as in they do their job of taking the hit for the big knights.
helverins on the other hand wreck face. Damage 3 might have been a bit much.
Ideasweasel wrote: Has anyone experimented with using relic ‘blessed by the sacristans’ and either ‘controlled aggression’ or ‘glory in honour’ stratagems?
Probably quite situations but using feet on a Gallant and one of those as a mortal wound generator could be interesting maybe?
gendoikari87 wrote: so how is everyone finding warglaives and helverins? so far my warglaives are good for dying, really good at it, as in they do their job of taking the hit for the big knights.
helverins on the other hand wreck face. Damage 3 might have been a bit much.
Helverins with a Perceptor for the buffs, Warlgaives supporting your other Questoris. Synergizes quite well that way.
I have magnetised all my knights and transport them in their sub-assemblies. I then use a metal sheet surrounded by foam to stick the sub-assemblies to.
raverrn wrote: How are you guys transporting multi-knight armies?
A toolbox that's got at least 7" of vertical clearance. There's lots of cheap plastic toolboxes out there that can hold knights. Line the inside with kitchen drawer liners and put washers at the bottom of the knights and magnets at the bottom of the container to keep them relatively steady.
Remember though, guys. Admech can only repair a Knight for 1 wound a turn, not d3. Sure, you can heal 2 wounds using the 1cp double heal stratagem, but you have to consider how viable that is.
Wulfey wrote: There is an admech WLT that increases repairs by 1.
I always forget about that WL trait! I guess it could work to regain 4 wound a turn on a Knight, but, it'll depend on the Knight aspect of the list and whether or not you need to CP regain WL trait.
I think house raven goes very well with Valiants. Its almost impossible not to find targets on your first turn if your Valiant can move + advance and then still fire off all its weapons. If you want even more, bring land strider for a further +2 on your advance roll.
Now, your Valiant moves 10+2+d6 on its first turn. It will bring you within range of his deployment zone on all your guns and your confrag gun flamer can now probably reach even further.
Also, if you do bring Valiant, you need to think about anti-tank. I actually made my list with both Castellan and Valiant in it because I think they complement each other. Castellan goes for the big hard targets while Valiant provides board control and goes after hordes and infantry.
If you are relying on Valiant plus other knights which are not castellan, then yes, I do think such an army would have a weakness against shooty lists. Any other knight other than a Castellan don't have enough fire power to take out long range threats. But on the flip side, a Castellan wouldn't do too well against hordes. Hence why I think they complement each other.
I put ion bulwark on my Castellan for a 4++ base save. Its the more obvious first target. This then ensures my Valiant lives to at least the second round where it will be able to bring all of its guns to bear.
Eldenfirefly wrote: I think house raven goes very well with Valiants. Its almost impossible not to find targets on your first turn if your Valiant can move + advance and then still fire off all its weapons. If you want even more, bring land strider for a further +2 on your advance roll.
Flamer yes. Though still can be denied 1st turn shooting. Harpoon will never fire on turn 1 if enemy doesn't want though even with advance.
Now, your Valiant moves 10+2+d6 on its first turn. It will bring you within range of his deployment zone on all your guns and your confrag gun flamer can now probably reach even further.
Of course being in range for deployment zone is not enough. You think he will conveniently line up something(especially anything worth targeting for harpoon) within line? HAH! Especially as you often deploy your army before anything of importance from enemy will be deployed. Some backfield shooters and DS units and hey presto your army is deployed. Then he'll deploy where you won't reach him 1st turn with harpoon. Flamer bit harder but then again he doesn't have to deploy straight ahead so diagonically more doable.
Though it's still workable house for valiant. Lack of hawkshroud strategem is biggest loss. But better IMO than say hawkshroud combining both.
Well yeah. That's why my list has both Castellan and Valiant. So, turn 1, the Valiant clears some chaff, Castellan shoots the heavy support. Now he has to decide, target Castellan or target Valiant. If he ignores the Valiant, now turn 2 the Valiant will be able to go up close and really do a lot of damage!
I find it interesting that your opponent's focus on the Castellan, my experience (I run Castellan, Valiant, Crusader @ 1750)has been the exact opposite, focusing on the Valiant to the exclusion of everything else. I've Always put the ion bulwark on him
I’ve thought that the Valiant was a trap from the moment I saw it. I think the same about the Gallant. To function effectively, both these knights have to go forwards. You have no choice in the matter, other than having your hugely expensive model do nothing.
All sorts of horrible things can happen to you when you go near the enemy. People start rapid firing their plasma guns and pull out stuff like melta weapons. Then sometimes they charge in and smack you with thunder hammers, or bite bits off you.
The other problem is range. Your opponent can just stay away from a Valiant or Gallant, and/or tie them up with cheap screens. That also means turns in which your expensive model does nothing, meaning that your opponent has more stuff alive to carry on hurting you with. I've no idea what the Tau player in the game above was doing, leaving stuff like hammerheads (which are faster than a Valiant) in range to be harpooned.
It’s true that knights do more damage at close range too. Even a crusader does more if it can get its heavy flamer and its feet working. It’s great to be able to do that, but sometimes it’s better not to. Even a single turn spent hanging back and shooting the teeth out of your opponent’s army can make a huge difference to the damage you take.
I think the only way you could potentially do well with a Valiant is in a house Raven list, where it can zerg forward. That gets you past the problem with being out-ranged, but not the problem of being killed because you got too close.
Edited because I can't remember the names of knights!
Mandragola wrote: The other problem is range. Your opponent can just stay away from a Valiant or Crusader, and/or tie them up with cheap screens. That also means turns in which your expensive model does nothing, meaning that your opponent has more stuff alive to carry on hurting you with. I've no idea what the Tau player in the game above was doing, leaving stuff like hammerheads (which are faster than a Valiant) in range to be harpooned.
Crusader? That thing posses 36" range. Unless you play on billiard table range beyond that isn't even useful. LOS alone should trim down most of the advantage over that and of course objectives means you can't just stay on furthest corner and shoot at will.
Mandragola wrote: The other problem is range. Your opponent can just stay away from a Valiant or Crusader, and/or tie them up with cheap screens. That also means turns in which your expensive model does nothing, meaning that your opponent has more stuff alive to carry on hurting you with. I've no idea what the Tau player in the game above was doing, leaving stuff like hammerheads (which are faster than a Valiant) in range to be harpooned.
Crusader? That thing posses 36" range. Unless you play on billiard table range beyond that isn't even useful. LOS alone should trim down most of the advantage over that and of course objectives means you can't just stay on furthest corner and shoot at will.
My bad, I meant Gallant. A crusader obviously won't have any problems with range.
gendoikari87 wrote: Any advice on dealing with boards? So far I can smash meq and vehicles to bits but don’t know what I can even do against hoards
Feet and the glory in honour terryn stratagem to fight again. That’s like 36 stamps with a Gallant. That would do ok against hordes If you had a couple maybe? Advantage is if you play quite aggressive with your knights the stampy feet might be useful.
Mandragola wrote: I’ve thought that the Valiant was a trap from the moment I saw it. I think the same about the Gallant. To function effectively, both these knights have to go forwards. You have no choice in the matter, other than having your hugely expensive model do nothing.
All sorts of horrible things can happen to you when you go near the enemy. People start rapid firing their plasma guns and pull out stuff like melta weapons. Then sometimes they charge in and smack you with thunder hammers, or bite bits off you.
The other problem is range. Your opponent can just stay away from a Valiant or Gallant, and/or tie them up with cheap screens. That also means turns in which your expensive model does nothing, meaning that your opponent has more stuff alive to carry on hurting you with. I've no idea what the Tau player in the game above was doing, leaving stuff like hammerheads (which are faster than a Valiant) in range to be harpooned.
It’s true that knights do more damage at close range too. Even a crusader does more if it can get its heavy flamer and its feet working. It’s great to be able to do that, but sometimes it’s better not to. Even a single turn spent hanging back and shooting the teeth out of your opponent’s army can make a huge difference to the damage you take.
I think the only way you could potentially do well with a Valiant is in a house Raven list, where it can zerg forward. That gets you past the problem with being out-ranged, but not the problem of being killed because you got too close.
Edited because I can't remember the names of knights!
Knights are intended to move forward, you are paying points for melee capability including in Knights like the Crusader. If you are sitting back avoiding melee, you paid too much for your army.
Loads of things are jacks of all trades. That doesn’t mean you should always charge them at everything you see. It means you have options, which you can use to get a tactical advantage over any given opponent.
I’m happy if my guys are killing more stuff than they are losing - at least in the early turns of a game before I need to grab objectives. I can achieve that by either killing the enemy fast, or by having my own guys stay alive for longer. It’s perfectly acceptable to reduce my own damage output if it reduces my opponent’s damage by even more, meaning that I win the fight in the end.
Some opponents will have more shooting than me, so I want to get into melee and stamp on them before they shoot me dead. But others will bring scary cc threats of their own and not that many guns. In that situation I’m better off shooting a bit to start with, not blindly charging into the teeth of my opponent’s army.
A Castellan or Crusader can do loads of damage at long range, and even more if they get close. A Valiant or Gallant does almost nothing at range, and huge amount up close. I still have the option of sending my crusader to stamp on things if I want – indeed it’s going to do at least as much damage as a Gallant if it’s firing all its guns and kicking things as well.
Chargeing is always best because it enhances your damage output.
Useing a crusader to finish an infantry squad is always going to be more effective than not chargeing because its an extra squad gone but the gallant is going to be more effective vs a tank or another knight.
Tactically protecting your crusader from CC units is important but many armies dont have them or can charge you anyway.
A pure knights list is not going to be able to stop a smash Cpt chargeing a knight
So is there any way of effectively dealing with Knights in general? If you're bringing a single Knight to supplement your army, it's almost always taking Ion Bulwark for the 4++ barring fringe cases which can get boosted to a 3++ for a single CP. If you're going up against an assault heavy army then you're taking Sanctuary which you can get up to a 4++ and against T8 24 wounds it's not going to be easy to take down. And even if you knock it down on the wound table if it's Questor Mechanicus it can just ignore all that for 1 CP. Ignoring it isn't the best idea either since that just lets it run roughshod on the rest of your army and tie up fire support. Aside from aiming a metric ton of lascannons at it and hope they fail their 3++ saves, or bringing in another Titanic unit and hoping you can shoot it off/get to fight first, I feel like there isn't any one great answer when Knights effectively have a good answer for everything.
U02dah4 wrote: Chargeing is always best because it enhances your damage output.
Useing a crusader to finish an infantry squad is always going to be more effective than not chargeing because its an extra squad gone but the gallant is going to be more effective vs a tank or another knight.
Tactically protecting your crusader from CC units is important but many armies dont have them or can charge you anyway.
A pure knights list is not going to be able to stop a smash Cpt chargeing a knight
No. Enhancing your damage output is not always best, if by doing so you allow your opponent to increase their damage output by more than you do. Charging can get your knights killed, which isn’t a good thing. Finishing off an infantry squad isn’t worth it if it means the smash captain reaches you a turn earlier, and without putting himself in danger.
It’s true that not everyone has CC units that can threaten a knight, but CC isn’t the only problem with getting close to the enemy. You also have smites going off, scary short-ranged guns and the ability for your opponent to focus all of his killing power (shooting and/or cc) on a single target.
Imagine dawn of war deployment. At the end of your turn one you could have a couple of knights in the back left and right corners of your deployment zone. The knights will get shot at, but because they are far away there will be lots of guns that can only fire at one or other of the knights, preventing your opponent from focusing them down. Rapid fire guns will fire one shot and meltas won’t fire at all.
Alternatively you could have a Gallant somewhere in your opponent’s deployment zone. Now your opponent can hit it with almost all of their guns. The close range stuff will be at full effectiveness and a smash captain can charge it straight away, without even putting himself at risk of getting shot. So your opponent will do much more damage, and all to a single target. Any decent army should kill the Gallant, in exchange for whatever trash unit he left in its way.
You won’t always be able to stop a cc unit like a smash captain – but you sometimes will. And if you make him come at you then you get to live for another turn or two, during which you can shoot things dead. So instead of the smash captain getting to kill something on turn 1 he does nothing. Instead of your knight being dead at the start of turn 2, it shoots more things dead.
Hard hitting CC units are the best e.g. Smash CPT most knights don't get an invul in CC and a BA smash CPT can mostly take a single knight on its own. If they take Sanctuary they are not takeing Ion bulwalk.so your shooting is going to be more effective. A 4++ will still let a lot of hits through in CC.
A BA CPT 116pt strategemed up makes 12-16 Attacks
Hitting 3's rerolling 1's wounding 3's 3 damage
Avg
11Damage vs 4++
18 vs no inv
Mortal W spam is an obvious counter
Strategem Countering is also potentially viable depending on the list a pure knights list is very CP tight so a calidous can potential exhaust it quickly agents of vecht is also an answer
@ mendragola
Unless the knight is completely surrounded by infantry a smash CPT will walk through and even if it is it's pretty easy to punch a one man hole they are not stopping you.
As i said target selection killing an infantry squad with a crusader is always good - walking a knight into the middle of a maxed out CC squad is always bad. Is killing an infantry squad worth sacrificeing a knight absolutely not
But that about positioning and sane target selection it doesn't take away the general principle that maximiseing your damage output is advantageous
12-16? They're 4 attacks base, aren't they?
So that's 4+1d3 (for a Strat) and then fight again, for another 4 (and only maybe the d3-not sure if that applies again), for 5-14, average of 12.
12 attacks
28/3 hits
56/9 wounds
28/9 against a 4++, 140/27 against a 3+
For a total of (assuming 3 damage) 9.33 against a 4++, 15.56 against a 3+.
But you can get a 4 damage Thunderhammer or a Thunderhammer without a hit penalty, which does affect the math.
You can get another +1 by making them death company (another 1CP). The +1 damage is a warlord trait, so not always the best idea if you don't want to be throwing your warlord to his death. There is a relic hammer that ignores the -1 to hit though.
DoomMouse wrote: You can get another +1 by making them death company (another 1CP). The +1 damage is a warlord trait, so not always the best idea if you don't want to be throwing your warlord to his death. There is a relic hammer that ignores the -1 to hit though.
JNAProductions wrote: 12-16? They're 4 attacks base, aren't they?
So that's 4+1d3 (for a Strat) and then fight again, for another 4 (and only maybe the d3-not sure if that applies again), for 5-14, average of 12.
12 attacks
28/3 hits
56/9 wounds
28/9 against a 4++, 140/27 against a 3+
For a total of (assuming 3 damage) 9.33 against a 4++, 15.56 against a 3+.
But you can get a 4 damage Thunderhammer or a Thunderhammer without a hit penalty, which does affect the math.
They are almost always rocking Death Visions of Sanguinius to get an extra attack on the charge.
U02dah4 wrote: Hard hitting CC units are the best e.g. Smash CPT most knights don't get an invul in CC and a BA smash CPT can mostly take a single knight on its own. If they take Sanctuary they are not takeing Ion bulwalk.so your shooting is going to be more effective. A 4++ will still let a lot of hits through in CC.
A BA CPT 116pt strategemed up makes 12-16 Attacks
Hitting 3's rerolling 1's wounding 3's 3 damage
Avg
11Damage vs 4++
18 vs no inv
Mortal W spam is an obvious counter
Strategem Countering is also potentially viable depending on the list a pure knights list is very CP tight so a calidous can potential exhaust it quickly agents of vecht is also an answer
@ mendragola
Unless the knight is completely surrounded by infantry a smash CPT will walk through and even if it is it's pretty easy to punch a one man hole they are not stopping you.
As i said target selection killing an infantry squad with a crusader is always good - walking a knight into the middle of a maxed out CC squad is always bad. Is killing an infantry squad worth sacrificeing a knight absolutely not
But that about positioning and sane target selection it doesn't take away the general principle that maximiseing your damage output is advantageous
Ion Bulwark and Sanctuary aren't mutually exclusive, one's a relic and one is a WL trait so you can absolutely have a Knight with a 3++ to shooting and 4++ in combat for 2 CP. And I agree, MW spam can put a dent in them but very few armies that I know of can reliably generate enough MW every turn to outright destroy a Knight. And stratagem countering can be effective but I believe Knights are best run as a supplement to another army like AM and Ad Mech and by dedicating almost all your units to a ~400 point model, the other 1600 points get left almost untouched.
And with Slamguinius as a solid counter, that's one specific unit with a specific build for one specific army. If every Imperial army needs a Slamguinius or a Titanic unit to stand a chance against a Knight, then to me that doesn't speak well to their balancing.
4 base
+1 for DC on the charge
Strategem that gives it +1-3 for the phase
Strategem that lets it fight again at the end of the phase or strategem that it fight again when it dies so its fighting twice
So (4+1+(1-3))×2 =12-16
You wont use the 4 damage thunderhammer youll use reroll charges and no overwatch
so up your avg by 2 attacks and you get to my working
With the TH you up your damage by 25% but theres a chance you die to overwatch or a higher probability of failing charge
The smash captain isn’t the only guy like that. In my own crimson fist army I run a Primaris captain with the fist of vengeance. 5 attacks doing 3 damage each with no penalty to hit. Add Might of heroes, a lieutenant and the warlord trait that gives +1 attack on the charge and he goes straight through things. I’ve had him do 15 damage to a knight in a single round of attacks. I also bring a lot of rapid firing plasma guns and a lieutenant for rerolls. If knights come to me I table them.
Units like hellblasters are incredibly dangerous at close range, and half as nasty far away. They are pretty vulnerable to being shot at by avenger gatling cannons though.
U02dah4 wrote: 4 base
+1 for DC on the charge
Strategem that gives it +1-3 for the phase
Strategem that lets it fight again at the end of the phase or strategem that it fight again when it dies so its fighting twice
So (4+1+(1-3))×2 =12-16
You wont use the 4 damage thunderhammer youll use reroll charges and no overwatch
so up your avg by 2 attacks and you get to my working
With the TH you up your damage by 25% but theres a chance you die to overwatch or a higher probability of failing charge
Slamguinus gets 4 damage from the Warlord Trait Artisan of War rather than the relic hammer usually. Otherwise looks right!
Sorry i never take the extra damage as i tend to pair with AM for grand strategist and wouldnt take the hammer over angels wing ,veritas vitae, or the standard.
So I played a couple of games with my Knights yesterday, used the following:
1x Gallant
1x Warden
1x Errant
1x Castellan
From what I've seen on here the general consensus is that the Avenger Cannon is the best weapon for a Knight, yet I was rather disappointed. I played Marines, and it barely accounted for 5 Marine kills over the course of 2 games. While it sounds like it'd be nice to mulch through vehicles, S6 doesn't help, and against MEQ statistically you're only looking at around 1-2 kills after saves, without taking cover or hit modifiers into account.
What's the appeal of the AGC over the other Knight weapons?
Valkyrie wrote: So I played a couple of games with my Knights yesterday, used the following:
1x Gallant
1x Warden
1x Errant
1x Castellan
From what I've seen on here the general consensus is that the Avenger Cannon is the best weapon for a Knight, yet I was rather disappointed. I played Marines, and it barely accounted for 5 Marine kills over the course of 2 games. While it sounds like it'd be nice to mulch through vehicles, S6 doesn't help, and against MEQ statistically you're only looking at around 1-2 kills after saves, without taking cover or hit modifiers into account.
What's the appeal of the AGC over the other Knight weapons?
Someone did the maths but I just recalculated it myself and you should be killing 3 and a half marines a turn with an AGC and the same of primaris. It does comparable damage to a RFBC against T8 and significantly better against GEU.
Slam Captains are the very reason I don't run pure Knights, he scares the poop out of me. Hide all of my AdMech infantry turn one, screen for deepstrike turn two. Watch my screen die but don't care because knights are alive and slam captain will eat my three knights worth of shooting/stomps if that's what it takes.
If he doesn't deepstrike turn two I will take those free rounds of shooting.
Valkyrie wrote: So I played a couple of games with my Knights yesterday, used the following:
1x Gallant
1x Warden
1x Errant
1x Castellan
From what I've seen on here the general consensus is that the Avenger Cannon is the best weapon for a Knight, yet I was rather disappointed. I played Marines, and it barely accounted for 5 Marine kills over the course of 2 games. While it sounds like it'd be nice to mulch through vehicles, S6 doesn't help, and against MEQ statistically you're only looking at around 1-2 kills after saves, without taking cover or hit modifiers into account.
What's the appeal of the AGC over the other Knight weapons?
Quick go through on statistical average vs MEQ(including Primaris due to Dam2): 12 shots with BS3+ = 9 hits, 9 hits wounding @ 3+ = 6 wounds, those 6 wounds are saved on a 5+ without cover so 4 dead marines. Cover saves 1 marine. -1 to hit only kills 2.666 marines out of cover and 2 in cover as well.
Marines are comparatively rare opponents these days MEQ was the std in 7th.
Avengers are not the best anti marine weapon however it sounds like most of your poor performance was bad dice or targetting if you were targetting in cover
As the above player expectancy is 4 dead per shot
.however more common imperialopponents
Guard/Tau /admech T3 7.5 dead squad
It will wound custodes on 3+
And will even do 4 dam to an unbuffed knight in a pinch. Its quite a versatile weapon
Valkyrie wrote: So I played a couple of games with my Knights yesterday, used the following:
1x Gallant
1x Warden
1x Errant
1x Castellan
From what I've seen on here the general consensus is that the Avenger Cannon is the best weapon for a Knight, yet I was rather disappointed. I played Marines, and it barely accounted for 5 Marine kills over the course of 2 games. While it sounds like it'd be nice to mulch through vehicles, S6 doesn't help, and against MEQ statistically you're only looking at around 1-2 kills after saves, without taking cover or hit modifiers into account.
What's the appeal of the AGC over the other Knight weapons?
Take the relic version and you'll never go back. It honestly sounds like your rolls were really cold and your opponent's saves were probably really hot. Space Marines get no invul saves, so those 3+ armor should have been a 5+ armor for shots from the AVG.
I personally don't like the Warden, though. I feel like the Crusader is a bit better for the extra dakka you get on one knight body.
Goldenemperor wrote: I think consistency is what the Valiant does over the Castellan. Look at the Castellan weapons and then look at the Valiant Weapons. The Valiant will one shot anything that does not have an invuln, flat, the Castellan easily has that potential but can whiff, the reroll with the Harpoon is more reliable than d6 shots in this instance. The Flamer vs Plasma is that the Flamer removes a gate entirely (to hit gate) and has d6 more shots, but again range is sacrificed. I think both Knights are extraordinary and both are viable. Also the relic flamer isn't THAT good to give up Taranis haha.
1 shot weapons are EPITOME of non-consistent weapons. Anything that shoots once a turn is one hell of a swing&miss. Not to mention with raven strategem castellan becomes super reliable blowing up 2+ units a turn.
And one thing valiant does consistently is be out of range first turn with all but carapace weapons...
Goldenemperor wrote: I think consistency is what the Valiant does over the Castellan. Look at the Castellan weapons and then look at the Valiant Weapons. The Valiant will one shot anything that does not have an invuln, flat, the Castellan easily has that potential but can whiff, the reroll with the Harpoon is more reliable than d6 shots in this instance. The Flamer vs Plasma is that the Flamer removes a gate entirely (to hit gate) and has d6 more shots, but again range is sacrificed. I think both Knights are extraordinary and both are viable. Also the relic flamer isn't THAT good to give up Taranis haha.
1 shot weapons are EPITOME of non-consistent weapons. Anything that shoots once a turn is one hell of a swing&miss. Not to mention with raven strategem castellan becomes super reliable blowing up 2+ units a turn.
And one thing valiant does consistently is be out of range first turn with all but carapace weapons...
The consistency comes from rerolling failed hits, wounding literally everything in the game on 2s, opponent having zero save (unless you shoot at an invuln, anything 4+ is a bad plan), and just the flat 11-12 damage, very little variance there. One dice that's it.
Anyone who knows anything Warhammer is not about math, it's about Variance. The amount of variance in the Volcano lance is made up for by its range, which is why I still like the gun, it's just different. If the harpoon misses even with it's free reroll that's like rolling a two on a Volcano lance rerolling it into a one, hitting, and then failing to wound, it happens to all weapons at some point, the Castellan isn't some special snowflake that is just magically superior in every way to the Valiant. Does that cross your mind when considering the Volcano lance that you could roll a one and reroll it into a two on its shots miss with one or both and do no damage? Or hell roll triple twos on the damage roll doing a tiny 3pts of damage. I'm making your argument right back at you and it's a dumb argument to say the least. Guess what? Weapons whiff, it's a game of Variance, congratulations.
I just laugh when people discredit a unit they have either never used, only heard about being used, make up some stupid mathhammer for said unit, or used it once in a game. Castellan, Valiant, both a good choice used for different play styles.
And one thing valiant does consistently is be out of range first turn with all but carapace weapons...
Well, that's just not true. Assuming you field the Valiant on its most forward deployment you've got a threat range 4'' into your enemies deployment zone. If you're house Raven (and for a Valiant you might as well be) then you're between 5 and 10'' into your enemies deployment zone, 7-12 of you've got landstrider too.
There is literally nowhere on a 6*4 that an opponent should be able to place there army that you can't reach out and cook something worth cooking with the conflagration cannon. Sure, you won't get to fire the harpoon turn one, but it's a gimmick compared to the flamer anyway.
And if your opponent has deployed more than ten inches back in their deployment zone, then congratulations, you have just strangled his early game manoeuvrability and essentially claimed 90% of the board.
For that matter, a house Raven unit that rolls a two or more on its advance stands a better than decent chance of being h able to fire the harpoon at something in turn one. It might be chaff, but you'll still get to use it
Goldenemperor wrote: The consistency comes from rerolling failed hits, wounding literally everything in the game on 2s, opponent having zero save (unless you shoot at an invuln, anything 4+ is a bad plan), and just the flat 11-12 damage, very little variance there. One dice that's it.
Still that's very few dice rolls which can fail. And you get no rerolls to wound. With raven castellan is rerolling 1's on EVERYTHING.
The more dice you roll the less your variance is. The less dice you roll the swingier your result is.¨Then we even have to factor in often you don't even need 10 damage at once as less do. So weapon that does 10 damage more reliably(volcano cannon) is not only better by being more reliable but also because when valiant rolls badly it does 0, when castellan rolls even worse it still causes damage which often can be enough. Double benefit! Not only you need to roll lot worse in average to roll badly with volcano cannon that worse rolling can still be enough!
As the dark eldar player last week noted. Knights rolling relatively few dices gets really hurt by bad luck. His dark eldars don't CARE about bad luck as he's rolling tons of dices. The more dice you roll the less swingy your results are. That's just simple probabilities. Rerolls good, rolling more dice better, both( raven castellan) even better.
Anyone who knows anything Warhammer is not about math, it's about Variance. The amount of variance in the Volcano lance is made up for by its range, which is why I still like the gun, it's just different. If the harpoon misses even with it's free reroll that's like rolling a two on a Volcano lance rerolling it into a one, hitting, and then failing to wound, it happens to all weapons at some point, the Castellan isn't some special snowflake that is just magically superior in every way to the Valiant. Does that cross your mind when considering the Volcano lance that you could roll a one and reroll it into a two on its shots miss with one or both and do no damage? Or hell roll triple twos on the damage roll doing a tiny 3pts of damage. I'm making your argument right back at you and it's a dumb argument to say the least. Guess what? Weapons whiff, it's a game of Variance, congratulations.
Yes. But thanks to rerolls and rolling more dices odds of total whiff is less than castellan. I take more reliable one out of the two.
40k is game of variance and odds. That's why I prefer less swingy variants. I can rely on castellan doing it's job more reliably than valiant. That's just how probabilities work. If you don't understand how probabilities work fine. Your loss.
Castellan is what you take if you want reliable damage. Valiant is the one if you want to deal with -3 fliers or just gamble up on swingy go big or go home.
To be fair, the castellan is swingy too. I played a game last night in which my lance got a 1 on its d6 for shots and missed on turn one. Turn two I rolled a 3 and it blew away an exocrine that was 48” away.
The flamer is actually not that swingy. 3d6 will converge around 10.5 hits pretty well. The harpoon isn’t so much swingy as binary - the target is dead or unhurt.
I still don’t like it, but because of its range not its reliability.
I don't know why there is still this ongoing debate between Valiant and Castellan. One is specialised for long range titan killing. Another is specialised more for mid range killing and handles hordes much better. Its like comparing apples to oranges.
I love both, and my IK list literally has a place for both in it. I bring both. Why not, since they complement each other! When you have a shadowsword you must kill, you will love your castellan. When you have elite or chaff infantry blocking your way to one or more objectives, you will love your Valiant.
btw, don't think just because its a melta gun, its wasted on infantry. When the Valiant is right up close, and the only targets in range are infantry, then I would still happily blast its 4 melta guns and spear harpoon into infantry. Dead is dead. Better being able to use my 4 melta guns and harpoon (even if its on infantry models), rather than not being able to shoot them at all.
I mentioned this before. But in a prior game with my friend, he brought two batallions of IG. We are talking about 6 squads and 4 heroes. It was IK vs IK. So, the knights were mostly busy killing each other. So, I can say that my Valiant was the one that accounted for 4 squads worth of IG, and 2 heroes. And the Valiant basically took care of two objectives because although it could only sit on one, its reach was such that there was no way my friend could get troops on the other objective. (Not without them being cooked to death by the confrag cannon).
And it did all this while also contributing to killing enemy knights as well. Did my Castellan do more? I really don't know. My Castellan basically focused on killing big knights, but it also needed help. Its not like my Castellan soloed my friend's knights alone. It couldn't have done it without the help of my Valiant and my Gallant.
Both are great I feel and quite distinct in their roles.
The Questoris knights are the middle of the field do it all Knights, but they don't really do THAT much dmg for what you pay for them, so i also agree on taking the Castellan for longer range armor killing, the Valiant for mid range cleansing and the Gallant for close range combat. It is in my view a good synergetic setup.
Mandragola wrote: To be fair, the castellan is swingy too. I played a game last night in which my lance got a 1 on its d6 for shots and missed on turn one. Turn two I rolled a 3 and it blew away an exocrine that was 48” away.
You did take Raven on your Castellan, didn't you?
If yes, then 1:36 to roll that 1 is just unlucky.
If no, then your bad - Raven on Castellan is the one auto pick in the codex.
Mandragola wrote: To be fair, the castellan is swingy too. I played a game last night in which my lance got a 1 on its d6 for shots and missed on turn one. Turn two I rolled a 3 and it blew away an exocrine that was 48” away.
You did take Raven on your Castellan, didn't you?
If yes, then 1:36 to roll that 1 is just unlucky.
If no, then your bad - Raven on Castellan is the one auto pick in the codex.
Raven Castellans are great solo knights, but my army is Tanaris and I'm fine with that. My castellan would certainly hit harder with that stratagem but I'm happy with the extra ~20 wounds my army has, thanks to the Tanaris trait. I'd have used a CP to reroll the 1 for the volcano lance, but had already used it to reroll to hit with a missile - which was a waste.
I used landstrider last night for the first time, in a game vs nids/GSK. That’s a truly awesome warlord trait. I put it on one of my wardens and stuck him at the front of my deployment zone (using the kind of chevron-shaped set up with long board edges, so he was 15” on). By the end of my first turn he was at the enemy board edge, locked in combat with a big unit of hive guard and some rippers that were holding an objective.
My opponent brought in his 20 GSK purestrains in his own deployment zone to deal with the problem, but could only bring the knight down to 8 wounds (including 5 wounds done by a smite).
The army does seriously chew through CPs. I had 9, but 8 were gone by the end of turn 1, and the last was used in turn 2 so my charging Warden could move at full speed to escape from cc with 20 stealers. I used one for to have endless fury on one of my wardens, one for landstrider on the other one, one to reroll an advance roll of a 1 for that knight (worth it, got a 5), two to fire a shieldbreaker missile at a neurothrope, one to reroll when it missed (I hit and did 1 wound…) and 2 for full tilt.
In hindsight the shieldbreaker missile stratagem is only a good idea if you really need to, and have a good chance of killing your target. A neurothrope has 5 wounds so really I threw away 3 CPs for not a great chance to kill it, and I didn’t really need to. But the full tilt charge on turn one took 6 hive guard out of the game, so that was definitely worth 3 CPs (or 4, including buying the warlord trait in the first place).
Eldenfirefly wrote: I don't know why there is still this ongoing debate between Valiant and Castellan. One is specialised for long range titan killing. Another is specialised more for mid range killing and handles hordes much better. Its like comparing apples to oranges.
I love both, and my IK list literally has a place for both in it. I bring both. Why not, since they complement each other! When you have a shadowsword you must kill, you will love your castellan. When you have elite or chaff infantry blocking your way to one or more objectives, you will love your Valiant.
btw, don't think just because its a melta gun, its wasted on infantry. When the Valiant is right up close, and the only targets in range are infantry, then I would still happily blast its 4 melta guns and spear harpoon into infantry. Dead is dead. Better being able to use my 4 melta guns and harpoon (even if its on infantry models), rather than not being able to shoot them at all.
I mentioned this before. But in a prior game with my friend, he brought two batallions of IG. We are talking about 6 squads and 4 heroes. It was IK vs IK. So, the knights were mostly busy killing each other. So, I can say that my Valiant was the one that accounted for 4 squads worth of IG, and 2 heroes. And the Valiant basically took care of two objectives because although it could only sit on one, its reach was such that there was no way my friend could get troops on the other objective. (Not without them being cooked to death by the confrag cannon).
And it did all this while also contributing to killing enemy knights as well. Did my Castellan do more? I really don't know. My Castellan basically focused on killing big knights, but it also needed help. Its not like my Castellan soloed my friend's knights alone. It couldn't have done it without the help of my Valiant and my Gallant.
Both are great I feel and quite distinct in their roles.
I don't know what the debate is either. People too close minded or too inexperienced in the game want to claim that the Dominus they bought is so superior to the other Dominus. They are both excellent choices and I have used both in different style lists, each with success and failure.
Drachii wrote: How are you finding the Castellan generally? EDIT: Particularly the Raven Castellan, as I'm considering Raven Knights,
I’m finding the Castellan way nastier than other knights at range. It’s a really serious upgrade from a crusader, for example.
A volcano lance does an average of 11.66 wounds to a T7 vehicle. A battlecannon does 4.15, an avenger does 3.55 and a thermal cannon up close does 6.8, or 8.7 within 18”. The VL has a range of 80”.
And on the other arm you have Cawl’s Wrath, which is an epic gun. On normal mode it’s basically a RFBC with an ap of -4, but overcharged it does 50% more damage, or even better against T8. And then you have 4 melta guns and the carapace weapons, which are really unpleasant.
A crusader with RFBC and gatling is 485. The Castellan comes in around 600 depending on weapons choice – so about 22% more expensive. It does more than double the damage to tough targets even before considering its secondary weapons.
Last night my Castellan killed an exocrine with is volcano lance. Two wounding hits did 12 damage, which is average and not particularly lucky. I overcharged Cawl’s wrath and deleted 4 hive guards at the same time. That’s over 400 points worth of damage while standing in its own deployment zone on an objective. I only got 3 shots from the VL and 5 from CW – it could have been even nastier, and a Raven one using the stratagem might have been.
So yeah, Castellans are seriously nasty things. The only thing I’d suggest is maybe playing as Krast rather than Raven, so you could bring two of them. Cawl’s Wrath on one and the Krast relic on the other. Ion Bulwark and the Krast warlord trait (reroll 1s to hit). No need to spend CPs during the game with that set up. That set up could reasonably expect to knock out 4 heavy tanks a turn with just its primary weapons.
If you’re adding one knight to an existing army then it should definitely be a Raven Castellan. Actually the Raven house tradition doesn’t do much for it, so I think you’d be better off picking one of the other mechanicus houses if you’re doing a full lance. You definitely want Cawl’s Wrath though, so not an imperial (or renegade) house.
Eldenfirefly wrote: I don't know why there is still this ongoing debate between Valiant and Castellan. One is specialised for long range titan killing. Another is specialised more for mid range killing and handles hordes much better. Its like comparing apples to oranges.[/snip]
Both are great I feel and quite distinct in their roles.
I don't know what the debate is either. People too close minded or too inexperienced in the game want to claim that the Dominus they bought is so superior to the other Dominus. They are both excellent choices and I have used both in different style lists, each with success and failure.
Those of us who don't like the Valiant have given our reasons why. We haven't resorted to personal insults against people who do like them. They may suit some playstyles better than others. Initial tournament results suggest that Castellans are turning up on top tables quite a lot, and that Valiants don't seem to be, but it's very early days - and tournament results aren't everything anyway.
Landstrider is great not only for the +2” movement to the Knight with the trait, but also the +2” movement to the friendly Household units within 6” of the Knight with the trait. You can sprint a Gallant and a gaggle of Glaives across the table.
If you’re adding one knight to an existing army then it should definitely be a Raven Castellan. Actually the Raven house tradition doesn’t do much for it, so I think you’d be better off picking one of the other mechanicus houses if you’re doing a full lance. You definitely want Cawl’s Wrath though, so not an imperial (or renegade) house.
My vote would be Vulker. You'd be surprised how useful it is, because you can still do all the awesome things A Castellan can do, and sometimes you're rerolling one's
My two cents on running him with GK to give them the anti tank thru so sorely need
Ion Bulwark and Sanctuary aren't mutually exclusive, one's a relic and one is a WL trait so you can absolutely have a Knight with a 3++ to shooting and 4++ in combat for 2 CP. .
Ion bulwark is shooting only, sorry, cant do that :(
U02dah4 wrote: Hard hitting CC units are the best e.g. Smash CPT most knights don't get an invul in CC and a BA smash CPT can mostly take a single knight on its own. If they take Sanctuary they are not takeing Ion bulwalk.so your shooting is going to be more effective. A 4++ will still let a lot of hits through in CC.
A BA CPT 116pt strategemed up makes 12-16 Attacks
Hitting 3's rerolling 1's wounding 3's 3 damage
Avg
11Damage vs 4++
18 vs no inv
Mortal W spam is an obvious counter
Strategem Countering is also potentially viable depending on the list a pure knights list is very CP tight so a calidous can potential exhaust it quickly agents of vecht is also an answer
@ mendragola
Unless the knight is completely surrounded by infantry a smash CPT will walk through and even if it is it's pretty easy to punch a one man hole they are not stopping you.
As i said target selection killing an infantry squad with a crusader is always good - walking a knight into the middle of a maxed out CC squad is always bad. Is killing an infantry squad worth sacrificeing a knight absolutely not
But that about positioning and sane target selection it doesn't take away the general principle that maximiseing your damage output is advantageous
Ion Bulwark and Sanctuary aren't mutually exclusive, one's a relic and one is a WL trait so you can absolutely have a Knight with a 3++ to shooting and 4++ in combat for 2 CP. And I agree, MW spam can put a dent in them but very few armies that I know of can reliably generate enough MW every turn to outright destroy a Knight. And stratagem countering can be effective but I believe Knights are best run as a supplement to another army like AM and Ad Mech and by dedicating almost all your units to a ~400 point model, the other 1600 points get left almost untouched.
And with Slamguinius as a solid counter, that's one specific unit with a specific build for one specific army. If every Imperial army needs a Slamguinius or a Titanic unit to stand a chance against a Knight, then to me that doesn't speak well to their balancing.
Captain slam is like 160 points and has a good chance to kill a knight with stratagems - which is like min 360 and up to 600 points....Uhhh - it's pretty clear here which unit is overpowered.
Ion Bulwark and Sanctuary aren't mutually exclusive, one's a relic and one is a WL trait so you can absolutely have a Knight with a 3++ to shooting and 4++ in combat for 2 CP. .
Ion bulwark is shooting only, sorry, cant do that :(
Sanctuary ion shields in CC. It works with the rotate stratagem. You can have a 3++ to shooting and a 4++ to cc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jeffersonian000 wrote: Landstrider is great not only for the +2” movement to the Knight with the trait, but also the +2” movement to the friendly Household units within 6” of the Knight with the trait. You can sprint a Gallant and a gaggle of Glaives across the table.
Ion Bulwark and Sanctuary aren't mutually exclusive, one's a relic and one is a WL trait so you can absolutely have a Knight with a 3++ to shooting and 4++ in combat for 2 CP. .
Ion bulwark is shooting only, sorry, cant do that :(
Sanctuary gives a 5++ to melee, which you can use Rotate Ion Shields to turn it into a 4++. And since stratagems are limited to one per phase, you can Rotate Ion Shields in the shooting phase for a 3++ with Ion Bulwark (WL trait) and then do it again in the fight phase for a 4++ (via the Sanctuary relic). All for 2 CP.
Eldenfirefly wrote: I don't know why there is still this ongoing debate between Valiant and Castellan. One is specialised for long range titan killing. Another is specialised more for mid range killing and handles hordes much better. Its like comparing apples to oranges.
I love both, and my IK list literally has a place for both in it. I bring both. Why not, since they complement each other! When you have a shadowsword you must kill, you will love your castellan. When you have elite or chaff infantry blocking your way to one or more objectives, you will love your Valiant.
btw, don't think just because its a melta gun, its wasted on infantry. When the Valiant is right up close, and the only targets in range are infantry, then I would still happily blast its 4 melta guns and spear harpoon into infantry. Dead is dead. Better being able to use my 4 melta guns and harpoon (even if its on infantry models), rather than not being able to shoot them at all.
I mentioned this before. But in a prior game with my friend, he brought two batallions of IG. We are talking about 6 squads and 4 heroes. It was IK vs IK. So, the knights were mostly busy killing each other. So, I can say that my Valiant was the one that accounted for 4 squads worth of IG, and 2 heroes. And the Valiant basically took care of two objectives because although it could only sit on one, its reach was such that there was no way my friend could get troops on the other objective. (Not without them being cooked to death by the confrag cannon).
And it did all this while also contributing to killing enemy knights as well. Did my Castellan do more? I really don't know. My Castellan basically focused on killing big knights, but it also needed help. Its not like my Castellan soloed my friend's knights alone. It couldn't have done it without the help of my Valiant and my Gallant.
Both are great I feel and quite distinct in their roles.
I don't know what the debate is either. People too close minded or too inexperienced in the game want to claim that the Dominus they bought is so superior to the other Dominus. They are both excellent choices and I have used both in different style lists, each with success and failure.
Not really no...The valiant is flat out inferior to the castellan. Everyone overrates the flamer cannon. Fact is - is not even as good as the relic plasma cannon on the castellan. Str 9 ap-4 flat 3 damage is a much more reliable profile. Even if you only average less than 2/3's the hits the flamer does - you are doing it at 48" rather than 18". You wound big targets on 3's usually rather than 5's and you take away all armor saves instead of giving them 4+ or 3+ armor saves. Then what if I told you...that's the castellans second best gun. The volcano lance is quite literally the best gun in the codex. The harpoon on the other hand...is a giant pile of garbage.
Theres also the other things going for castellan...it's required relic is mechanics - where as the relic flamer is imperialis. Imperialis faction traits suck in comparison to Raven and Taranis - that is another HUGE factor. Valiant actually benefits more from being raven than taking it's relic weapon anyways.
If you’re adding one knight to an existing army then it should definitely be a Raven Castellan. Actually the Raven house tradition doesn’t do much for it, so I think you’d be better off picking one of the other mechanicus houses if you’re doing a full lance. You definitely want Cawl’s Wrath though, so not an imperial (or renegade) house.
My vote would be Vulker. You'd be surprised how useful it is, because you can still do all the awesome things A Castellan can do, and sometimes you're rerolling one's
My two cents on running him with GK to give them the anti tank thru so sorely need
My opinion is any trait that can be overruled by simply moving a trash unit closer to the enemy sucks huge donkey.
IMO there are 3 good factions. This is their order of goodness.
Taranis (resurrect knights is OP) 6+++ is just icing on the OP cake.
Raven (advance and shoot all knights and assault turn 1 is OP) Best offensive stratagem.
Griffith (+1 attack per knight and heroic interventions even if they aren't characters is OP on Gallants) Gallant warlord with +1 attack has 21 attacks that hit on 2's....That's right...21.
all the reroll 1 army traits are trash can be duplicated by another unit (gman) or stratagem.
If you’re adding one knight to an existing army then it should definitely be a Raven Castellan. Actually the Raven house tradition doesn’t do much for it, so I think you’d be better off picking one of the other mechanicus houses if you’re doing a full lance. You definitely want Cawl’s Wrath though, so not an imperial (or renegade) house.
My vote would be Vulker. You'd be surprised how useful it is, because you can still do all the awesome things A Castellan can do, and sometimes you're rerolling one's
My two cents on running him with GK to give them the anti tank thru so sorely need
No, because a solo knight doesn’t get its household trait. A Vulker Castellan in a lance is pretty cool. On its own it is not.
The raven one is good because of its stratagem, which it gets even as an auxiliary. I don’t particularly rate house raven for a Castellan in a lance (though it’s not bad), but it’s by far the best option for a solo.
Third game with knights. Took ravens again with castellan(4++, cawl's wrath), warder(endless fury, fist), errant, helverin, armiger and then IG battallion with 2xcommander(you know what), 3 infantry squad(1 with heavy bolter and 1 with plasma gun as had points) and 3 mortars. Was up against ulthwe with 1-2 farseer and 1-2 warlock with jetbikes(3 psyker, don't recall which he had 2), 5 shining spear, autarch on bike, guardian squad with shuriken cannon I think, 2 squads of rangers, 5 wraithguard of flamer of doom variety in wave serpent, hemlock, 10 dark reapers, wraithlord with 2 bright lances, war walker. We rolled tactical gambit. Like 3rd time in a row on tuesday games with this scenario!
Terrain was fairly nasty for me with plenty of ruins for cover to him, some LOS blocking especially for small squads and multiple layers. But hey I can only have me to blame as I set up the terrain, asked if it's ok and barely glancing at it while unpacking army he said yes. So if it was unfair terrain for me I have only myself to blame
I screwed up deployment putting my warlord with mortars on my left. Also should have put castellan on center I think as I gave clearer path for shining spears toward it(possibly locking in combat) so to reduce that used huge terrain piece and helverin to reduce risk of getting escape path blocked.
He went first. Really my 1st turn dices are weird. With knights it's now 3 out of 3 I lose the roll off with +1. My orks meanwhile with opponent getting +1 either win it or seize with huge frequency. In small quantities dices can be funny.
He advanced forward with hemlock flanking my errant. Reapers arrived to his DZ from webway where he had put in case I get first turn. Alas hadn't deployed warlord yet to account for this so kurov didn't get to work. Lesson for future. Overall nothing crazy yet. Magic he guided reapers and took out mortars with farseer that had went and I realized my warlord is in serious jeopardy due to above mentioned deployment screwup. On shooting he split bit too much so hurt errant and warden which finally popped ion shields when reapers came in. Fairly light damage so far for knights, most of IG were dead. That -2LD from hemlock hurt as well.
I responded mostly staying put due to shining spears and that wave serpent. IG squad moved forward to intercept wave serpent. On left errant went on lone rush toward farseer hoping to save grand strategist. Helverin and castellan continued their hug the terrain to help in case bikes come in. Warglaive moves bit closer to get melta in range. Shooting. Raven strategem popped up. Errant and warglaive shoots meltas at wave serpent doing decent damage. Warder shoots at shining spears killing 2. Ulthwe trait saved 1 forcing extra wound finish the 2nd. Then castellan. Not sure what plasma did but volcano lance dropped hemlock out of the sky and carapace weapons finished off wave serpent(plasma might have went here). And I fired missile with strategem toward farseer warlord that had guided dark reapers. 1 to hit. Reroll due to strategem. Hit. 1 to wound. THANK GOD raven strategem. I wound. Opponent is shocked to hear no invulnerable and then I roll 6 for wounds. FNP doesn't save and his warlord had just died! FORESEE THAT! Errant popped up full tilt and charged farseer/warlock on left(I think farseer since it had executioner) but only stomped for 1 wound. Darn.
His turn 2. Wraithguard prepared to charge my infantry squad(he needed to kill in close combat to score objective). Bikes moved there as well preparing to charge warglaive. Farseer left disengaged and moved next to my warlord finishing it with executioner and smite. War walker appeared there as well. Shooting saw wraithguard flame warglaive hard and other shooting resulted to 1 wound left. Dark reapers fired at warder but ion shield strategy(after which I had 1 CP left) kept damage minimal. Combat infantry squad and warglaive were taken out without trouble.
My turn 2. Castellan and warden closes in to bikes. Errant circles toward enemy DZ. Shooting castellan fired at wraithguard that got -1 hit from somewhere. Lance killed 2, plasma killed 2 and hurt ME 5 times. Carapace guns don't recall but missile fired point blank range into autarch. Hit, wound, 6 damage, dead autarch. Opponent wasn't too pleased at my missile luck Warden peppered some guardians I think. Combat warden and castellan charged and killed shining spears.
Turn 3. By now it was clear I was ahead in killing war and would be looking at tabling him while he was waaaay ahead on objectives(like 15-3 by now) so it was going to be can he survive or not. His turn wasn't that eventful as by now he was pretty much out of firepower to hurt me. Bright lances did something, dark reapers were negated by ion shield(he got 3 wounds, I rolled 4, 4 and 5 for saving throws). My turn castellan vaporized wraithlord, warden took out dark reapers bar exarch, errant stomped one squad of rangers that had been scoring lots of objectives. Helverin finished off farseer from my left.
Turn 4. He ran around circles trying to hide stuff. Notable annoyances were last wraithguard that was hiding behind wall, war walker and warlock and lone dark reaper and the guardians. Thing is he had lots of small squads here and there I needed to hunt...Errant went back toward my DZ to hunt the wraith guard and warwalker. Alas I didn't even KILL the war walker with charging errant on first go. 2 6's on FNP. Warden advanced trying to reach dark reaper and guardians. Castellan had to spend entire firepower to take out one squad of rangers as they were protecting warlock. Say something about overkill! Warden let go and finished off guardians.
Turn 5 he just hid as best as he could but really best he could do was ensure no charge and stomp from castellan to warlock. Then it was my turn(due to time this would be last turn anyway). I needed to a) kill wraithguard with 1 wound b) kill war walker with 2 wounds c) kill 1 dark reaper d) kill that warlock with it's 3++.
Errant fired at wraithguard. This was excelent chance to lose. I was down like 30-10 in vp's so no tabling, I lose. Luckily I got 4 shots and unsurprisingly wraith guard was molten slag.
Warden ripped the dark reaper apart. Good luck surviving endless fury.
Castellan fired at the warlock. Lance failed to get past inv save. Plasma on overload however burned warlock to cinder.
So it was errant vs war walker. I opted to stomp for safety. Nearly screwed it though. Just 2 past saves. 3 wounds. IF he rolls 2 6's out of 3 dice he wins. He didn't. Win by tabling, lose on vp's.
Phew. So what I learned:
a) more careful with warlord with fast eldars. I thought LOS blocking was safe. Didn't expect solo farseer sniping attack here
b) castellan is awesome. That range and big pile of guns each capable of doing useful means he's threat always. That range advantage is HUGE. Turn 1 valiant would have been hard pressed to hit that flier and would have hurt knights late game. And of course that warlock would have been 100% safe from him so I would have been relying on helverin to win the game for me.
c) helverins are indeed great. Decent firepower and they can be used to hit small targets too small for bigger knights to bother. Speed was great
d) raven trait is pretty darn awesome. I was advancing a lot here and needed that extra move to get around LOS blocks and ensure next turn I could charge. I would have been struggling to hunt down all these sneaky eldars without it
e) imperial knights have hard time with objectives. Few units so hard to get to objectives, no super fast units and every unit needs to be killing at full strength as much as possible. With objectives I was having to do decisions "do I want to charge those shining spears or take VP?" or other similar. Also of course any "take 3 objectives" are pretty hard. Even killing like 3 units is pretty hard. Coupled with some bad luck with cards(kill flyer...Gee only flier left was warlock behind rangers. Or defend objective behind his lines but nothing there for me to bother to go kill) or make morale test fail...I was very fast behind those.
If his farseer warlord hadn't died to that missile I would probably have lost. Don't think I could have killed another jetbike character. Not impossible(I still had that helverin left and I could have split castellan a bit) but lot harder and there was already plenty of ways that last turn could have failed.
f) knights are CP hungry as hell. I burned like over 6 CP before 2nd round started. Albeit 2 was due to my deployment mistake which forced attempting full tilt charge I wouldn't have done otherwise.
My vote would be Vulker. You'd be surprised how useful it is, because you can still do all the awesome things A Castellan can do, and sometimes you're rerolling one's
My two cents on running him with GK to give them the anti tank thru so sorely need
No, because a solo knight doesn’t get its household trait. A Vulker Castellan in a lance is pretty cool. On its own it is not.
The raven one is good because of its stratagem, which it gets even as an auxiliary. I don’t particularly rate house raven for a Castellan in a lance (though it’s not bad), but it’s by far the best option for a solo.
I think a solo Castellan can still take the Vulker Warlord Trait to rerolls 1s if you spend a CP for it pre-game. Rerolling all 1s to hit is probably more important then rerolling misses in CC, especially for a Castellan.
Correct. But rerolling just 1's on to hit isn't that good. Yeah it helps but with lone raven castellan you reroll 1's on EVERYTHING. And that's a lot of dices you get to reroll. Lance shots. Lance to hit, to wound. Then 3d3 per and all 1's from those 3 dice. Then 2d6 plasma shots, their to hit, to wound. Melta to hit, to wound, d6 damage and of course shoulder guns shots etc and missile. Today's game(well yesterday by now actually) that ability alone saved my neck as it ensured I got that missile into farseer. With just 1 to hit rolled I would have botched that to wound roll. Lance rolling 1 shot isn't nice. And 4 meltas it's too easy to miss one or two and then fail yet another. Low number of dices that knights roll leaves you scarily vulnerable to even narrow bad luck. Raven strategem makes it very hard to roll bad enough to get screwed. I don't think I have yet used anything near as reliable thing buster except Pask and potential of Pask isn't anywhere near Castellan(Albeit costs less than half the points!). I can reliably decide at least 2 targets I want get deleted. With just reroll 1's to hit it would be lot riskier on that front.
Albeit that costs CP but I find that well worth it. Also you can give 4++ for the knight instead.
Oh and btw that raven warlord trait...Anybody can think any real use for it? I'm hard pressed to come up with it. Maybe I could take it against army with tons of -1 rather than land strider but 4++ is obviously better so you need BOTH of those to make raven trait worth it.
I'm hard pressed to come up any reason to take other house than raven for solo castellan. On full detachment others can help others enough it's worth not having that castellan-made strategem but on solo raven all the way! Even one turn with that can make the difference.
So I had a bit of a thought yesterday. Let's say you have house raven Castellan. You use their stratagem on it. You took 2 cannons and 1 missile rack. You get ready to fire, determining the number of shots on the plasma 2d6 re-rolling 1's, the volcano lance, 1d6 re-rolling 1's. Now we get to the siegebreakers. Do you re roll the "1's" (natural 1 or 2) on the 1d3 roll? Or just the 1s on the dice? Same for the d3 damage rolls, just the natural 1 on the die or the result of 1? Indeed a conundrum to me.
tneva82 wrote: Correct. But rerolling just 1's on to hit isn't that good. Yeah it helps but with lone raven castellan you reroll 1's on EVERYTHING.
For sure the Raven stratagem is better but since it costs 2CP a time, you would really hope it should be. The benefit of the Krast Warlord trait is that you don't need CPs to keep it powered. If your Knight survives the opening couple of turns, it can continue to overcharge its plasma Decimator with only minimal risks of overheating.
Everyone keeps saying the Castellan is better. Alright, fine, you can make all the arguments you want about why. Better damage, higher strength, blah blah blah.
The Valiant is awesome and nobody is going to convince me otherwise. I've deleted too many things with it in just a handful of games to shelve it in favor of a Castellan. The bottom line is that the flamer will reliably delete any 10-man troop squad. The meltas+harpoon will delete any light/medium vehicle or monster that gets too close. The cannons and missiles let it reach out and touch troublesome things in the opponent's back line. It creates such incredible area denial and has an answer to knights weakness: melee. Yes, yes, if you get the charge off, you'll likely kill whatever you charge, but the fact of the matter is that a good opponent will happily keep out of range of your charge only to counter-charge. A failed charge leaves you wide open to get thunder hammered to death. The Valiant don't care. The Valiant annihilates anything that tries to charge it. Terminators. Dreadnoughts (except space wolf ven dreads, funnily enough), just about anything will wither under that cannon, and if anything else happens to hit, it's all the better.
Then you throw on Hawkshroud, the Traitor's Pyre, and use the extra-overwatch stratagem that Hawkshroud gets to defend your screen or buddy knight from getting charged and the area denial only increases.
The Castellan can't do that. The Castellan is point-and-shoot. That's it. It's boring. Yes, yes, the guns are mega powerful. Yes Cawl's Wrath is impressive. Blah blah blah. It doesn't change up what Knights do. It doesn't change up what shooting armies do in 40k. You sit somewhere and you shoot things and that's freakin' boring.
When the Valiant gets across the table, all eyes are on it. The gaming club hears 'harpoon' and they all come rushing over to see if, miraculously, it'll manage to hit and kill something that time around. Even if it doesn't, the threat of the harpoon is palpable in the air. It happens every time you use that harpoon and it's a fantastic feeling.
That doesn't happen when you shoot the Castellan. You might as well bring a Baneblade. Remember when people were excited about Baneblades being added to the game? In my experience, it was a flare of excitement, and then that was it. People realized how OP they were and groaned in disappointment when they saw a baneblade across the table. Yeah, it has more shooting than anything else in the game, but that's just the same as the Castellan. It's just a walking Baneblade. Booooring.
But a Valiant... You pick yourself up a Valiant and you're gaming in style. You're murdering tanks with the harpoon and roasting heretics and xenos with that flamer and the feeling of getting those hits off and having your opponent's shots bounce off of the Valiant's Ion Bulwark is so much better than the feeling of having your Castellan charged by some Terminators, assault marines, or heck, even stormboyz, and dying pathetically and predictably because it doesn't have a giant freakin' flamer to discourage it.
In short, I'm tired of people crapping on the Valiant when it is the superior Dominus. Maybe not in firepower, or mathhammer, or whatever else the WAAC players are saying... but in raw fun. And isn't that important when you're playing a game?
lol well, the harpoon does generate a lot of drama every time it shoots. The sheer power of that thing if it gets through and damages is breath taking.
I don't expect it to hit every time, but when it does... hehe. so fun.
tneva82 wrote: Correct. But rerolling just 1's on to hit isn't that good. Yeah it helps but with lone raven castellan you reroll 1's on EVERYTHING.
For sure the Raven stratagem is better but since it costs 2CP a time, you would really hope it should be. The benefit of the Vulker Warlord trait is that you don't need CPs to keep it powered. If your Knight survives the opening couple of turns, it can continue to overcharge its plasma Decimator with only minimal risks of overheating. Plus the Vulker stratagem of exploding 6s is quite tasty for just 1CP.
You don\t need that strategem more than 1-2 times so it's not that bad and it's well worth it. Vulker trait costs meanwhile you 4++ which being castellan being one huge bull's eye is very pricey for me. With 4++ I find people are hesitant to even fire it.
And I'm not particularly worried about the overheats. I'm more worried about lance shots, simply misses and failed wounds or 1's on damage rolls.
Vulker strategem is nice but I would want more shots than castellan which does not fire that many shots.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
StarHunter25 wrote: So I had a bit of a thought yesterday. Let's say you have house raven Castellan. You use their stratagem on it. You took 2 cannons and 1 missile rack. You get ready to fire, determining the number of shots on the plasma 2d6 re-rolling 1's, the volcano lance, 1d6 re-rolling 1's. Now we get to the siegebreakers. Do you re roll the "1's" (natural 1 or 2) on the 1d3 roll? Or just the 1s on the dice? Same for the d3 damage rolls, just the natural 1 on the die or the result of 1? Indeed a conundrum to me.
You roll the '1s on result. d3 has results of 1, 2 and 3. You reroll those 1's.
The valiant in theory is more fun. But then you’ve got it on the tip of your deployment zone and go 2nd against a gunline. You’re picking that bad boy up before you can even move it. Not fun :(
Looking at the google doc for ETC someone is bringing 3 castellans and a small batallion of ad mech. Wonder how it will do.
Jean Borrower wrote: The valiant in theory is more fun. But then you’ve got it on the tip of your deployment zone and go 2nd against a gunline. You’re picking that bad boy up before you can even move it. Not fun :(
Looking at the google doc for ETC someone is bringing 3 castellans and a small batallion of ad mech. Wonder how it will do.
Fun for other is boring for others. I don't find having to move knight where opponent wants fun. And I find it fun to see opponents face pale when castellan fires.
As for ETC thing remember this is ETCTEAM tournament. As teams have degree of control on opponent it won't be good showcase for more normal. 3 castellans would get ran over by hordes obviously. But guess what? Unlikely it will be facing one. Instead they will be aimed to go against stuff that has vehicles or monsters. Tyranid carnifex swarms etc. So rather well.
It's skew list to give crushing victories against armies they are designed for. Similar skew lists are out there but in reverse by being armies that struggle to win but are very unlikely to lose big. These will be put in forward to deal with lists team doesn't have good tools or be first in so that no matter what comes massacre loss there is unlikely.
drbored wrote: Everyone keeps saying the Castellan is better. Alright, fine, you can make all the arguments you want about why. Better damage, higher strength, blah blah blah.
The Valiant is awesome and nobody is going to convince me otherwise. I've deleted too many things with it in just a handful of games to shelve it in favor of a Castellan. The bottom line is that the flamer will reliably delete any 10-man troop squad. The meltas+harpoon will delete any light/medium vehicle or monster that gets too close. The cannons and missiles let it reach out and touch troublesome things in the opponent's back line. It creates such incredible area denial and has an answer to knights weakness: melee. Yes, yes, if you get the charge off, you'll likely kill whatever you charge, but the fact of the matter is that a good opponent will happily keep out of range of your charge only to counter-charge. A failed charge leaves you wide open to get thunder hammered to death. The Valiant don't care. The Valiant annihilates anything that tries to charge it. Terminators. Dreadnoughts (except space wolf ven dreads, funnily enough), just about anything will wither under that cannon, and if anything else happens to hit, it's all the better.
Then you throw on Hawkshroud, the Traitor's Pyre, and use the extra-overwatch stratagem that Hawkshroud gets to defend your screen or buddy knight from getting charged and the area denial only increases.
The Castellan can't do that. The Castellan is point-and-shoot. That's it. It's boring. Yes, yes, the guns are mega powerful. Yes Cawl's Wrath is impressive. Blah blah blah. It doesn't change up what Knights do. It doesn't change up what shooting armies do in 40k. You sit somewhere and you shoot things and that's freakin' boring.
When the Valiant gets across the table, all eyes are on it. The gaming club hears 'harpoon' and they all come rushing over to see if, miraculously, it'll manage to hit and kill something that time around. Even if it doesn't, the threat of the harpoon is palpable in the air. It happens every time you use that harpoon and it's a fantastic feeling.
That doesn't happen when you shoot the Castellan. You might as well bring a Baneblade. Remember when people were excited about Baneblades being added to the game? In my experience, it was a flare of excitement, and then that was it. People realized how OP they were and groaned in disappointment when they saw a baneblade across the table. Yeah, it has more shooting than anything else in the game, but that's just the same as the Castellan. It's just a walking Baneblade. Booooring.
But a Valiant... You pick yourself up a Valiant and you're gaming in style. You're murdering tanks with the harpoon and roasting heretics and xenos with that flamer and the feeling of getting those hits off and having your opponent's shots bounce off of the Valiant's Ion Bulwark is so much better than the feeling of having your Castellan charged by some Terminators, assault marines, or heck, even stormboyz, and dying pathetically and predictably because it doesn't have a giant freakin' flamer to discourage it.
In short, I'm tired of people crapping on the Valiant when it is the superior Dominus. Maybe not in firepower, or mathhammer, or whatever else the WAAC players are saying... but in raw fun. And isn't that important when y ou're playing a game?
Pretty much my view too. And against most opponents, do far, the Valiant has been the star player, do YMMV
My vote would be Vulker. You'd be surprised how useful it is, because you can still do all the awesome things A Castellan can do, and sometimes you're rerolling one's
My two cents on running him with GK to give them the anti tank thru so sorely need
No, because a solo knight doesn’t get its household trait. A Vulker Castellan in a lance is pretty cool. On its own it is not.
The raven one is good because of its stratagem, which it gets even as an auxiliary. I don’t particularly rate house raven for a Castellan in a lance (though it’s not bad), but it’s by far the best option for a solo.
I think a solo Castellan can still take the Vulker Warlord Trait to rerolls 1s if you spend a CP for it pre-game. Rerolling all 1s to hit is probably more important then rerolling misses in CC, especially for a Castellan.
Ahh I see the confusion. Rerolling 1s is actually the Krast warlord trait, not Vulker. That's not a bad trait for a Castellan, but I think Ion Bulwark is better on a solo. You've got to expect every AT gun the enemy has to be pointed at it.
Krast Castellans are good. In addition to the standard Cawl's Wrath/Ion Bulwark set up they can also have one with The Headsman's Mark relic and First Knight warlord trait. It's the only house where taking two Castellans is possibly a good idea. The rerolls to hit in close combat increase its stompy power by 50% too.
I 100% agree with the argument that Valiant's are more fun than Castellans. Burning and harpooning things is clearly cooler than standing back firing a volcano lance and Cawl's Wrath. I'll get one eventually, even though my House Tanaris clearly doesn't have great synergy with it. It's not the right unit for me right now, trying to make a tournament list with House Tanaris, but it's still kind of awesome. And it will draw fire away from my Castellan!
It does draw all the fire. I'm looking forward to let my inner giant ham out at GT this weekend when my Valiant, Castellan and Crusader come to play.
Do I expect to win lots? Not especially, though I imagine I'll do okay. Do I expect to loudly and in a pirate accent ' fire the Harpoon at them there heretics'.....
Jean Borrower wrote: The valiant in theory is more fun. But then you’ve got it on the tip of your deployment zone and go 2nd against a gunline. You’re picking that bad boy up before you can even move it. Not fun :(
Looking at the google doc for ETC someone is bringing 3 castellans and a small batallion of ad mech. Wonder how it will do.
I would not infer anything about Knights from the ETC. The nature of how lists are matched against opponents means that you will avoid most, if not all, of the lists that counter Knights.
You don't get that luxury in a normal tournament.
Mandragola wrote: I 100% agree with the argument that Valiant's are more fun than Castellans. Burning and harpooning things is clearly cooler than standing back firing a volcano lance and Cawl's Wrath. I'll get one eventually, even though my House Tanaris clearly doesn't have great synergy with it. It's not the right unit for me right now, trying to make a tournament list with House Tanaris, but it's still kind of awesome. And it will draw fire away from my Castellan!
Standing back? Castellan doesn't stand back. It stomps forward projecting aura of destruction and threat forward dictating actions on opponent rather than being dictated by opponent like valiant. Stomping forward you watch your opponent go pale as a ghost when he realizes you are about to delete at least 2 units per turn from his army almost regardless of where they are and not paltry 10 strong infantry squads but tanks, monsters, fliers or monster infantry like wraith guard.
I think a solo Castellan can still take the Vulker Warlord Trait to rerolls 1s if you spend a CP for it pre-game. Rerolling all 1s to hit is probably more important then rerolling misses in CC, especially for a Castellan.
Ahh I see the confusion. Rerolling 1s is actually the Krast warlord trait, not Vulker. That's not a bad trait for a Castellan, but I think Ion Bulwark is better on a solo. You've got to expect every AT gun the enemy has to be pointed at it.
You are right, thanks for pointing that out. I have gone back and fixed the OP.
Standing back? Castellan doesn't stand back. It stomps forward projecting aura of destruction and threat forward dictating actions on opponent rather than being dictated by opponent like valiant.
I WISH the Castellan stomped forward. I would summarily execute it if it did. In every game I've played against one (about 6 in a row now) my opponent has managed range and kept my DP/ Jumpcaps/ Gallant etc at arms length and with units in the way.
Racing your castellan towards a combat type where it hits on 4+ and has no invuln save is lunacy, the way lists are currently gearing up to deal with knights.
As soon as I get my castellan I am thinking about all the opportunities for cover it will have. It has 48" range without its meltas. And it is tall. If you can peak a gun barrel over a big piece of terrain and put the base 'toe in cover', then it can get a 2+. EDIT: assuming the shooting stuff is on the other side of the wall. I have even heard of straight up shenanigans like putting a gallant in front of a castellan, then putting the castellan's base 'toe in cover' and getting a 50% obscured save.
I think the point is the Castellan can hang back and shoot if that is required or stomp forward to bring its meltas (and feet) to bare if the opportunity arises. The Valiant is commited to marching up the table to get anything apart from its carapace weapons into range.
Karhedron wrote: I think the point is the Castellan can hang back and shoot if that is required or stomp forward to bring its meltas (and feet) to bare if the opportunity arises. The Valiant is commited to marching up the table to get anything apart from its carapace weapons into range.
Precisely. Castellan can do whichever helps you most. Valiant has to go where opponent decides it goes.
Tuesday game castellan was MVP and largely due to range. I could stand back and shoot when it was useful(1st turn to ensure no shining spear shenigans locking it in combat). I could move forward when it was needed but in direction *I* chose. Get LOS where I wanted, meltas in range and then charge against stuff it could deal with in combat. Then on the double more to bring in meltas in range of new stuff and later yet more to go around LOS blocking terrain and bring LOS to elusive character that was using speed to dodge me best it could.
Valiant meanwhile...Well T1 either it would not shoot at the flier or he would have had to race toward bad direction. This would have hurt me on objective scoring and killing stuff later costing me death of rangers on turn 4 and that final character turn 5. Incidentally would have meant loss of game.
Oh and that range makes it also great flier hunter. People talk about how valiant auto hit flamer is great flamer hunter. And sure! It's great. Problem is with 18" range you struggle to do it(And 1st turn obviously never happen as fliers go to furthest corners) and to do so you have to go into where opponent moves. Fliers have often enough range and definitely speed to move around.
And in terms of firepower castellan still packs enough to blow out alaitoc flier out. Standard flier with -1 to hit isn't even hard one. -1 to hit eldar one is something volcano lance eats for a lunch as was shown up. Might invest some more firepower against more robust flier to be on safe side.
Range on castellan is great. It gives options and allows you to dictate what castellan does. Valiant is going where opponent goes. I hate having 600 pts go where opponent wants it to go.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alexonian wrote: So I've joined the knight club, was a guy on facebook selling 4 castellans and 2 valiants,
impulse bought a castellan, thinking about adding 2 armigers, and then either ad mech or tempestus.
Not bad idea. Castellan for tank busting, then probably 2 helverins. They provide nice flexible long range firepower and warglaives provide generally dedicated tank busting and unless you are in super vehicle heavy meta where 2 vehicles/turn kill rate from castellan isn't enough you don't really NEED dedicated heavy tank power. Helverin provides already decent light tank firepower to help with say dark eldar vehicles and non-wave serpent eldar vehicles.
For ad mech or tempestus focus on objective controlling and infantry. Your knight section will deal with tanks efficiently but infantry is bigger issue.
Karhedron wrote: I think the point is the Castellan can hang back and shoot if that is required or stomp forward to bring its meltas (and feet) to bare if the opportunity arises. The Valiant is commited to marching up the table to get anything apart from its carapace weapons into range.
Precisely. Castellan can do whichever helps you most. Valiant has to go where opponent decides it goes.
Tuesday game castellan was MVP and largely due to range. I could stand back and shoot when it was useful(1st turn to ensure no shining spear shenigans locking it in combat). I could move forward when it was needed but in direction *I* chose. Get LOS where I wanted, meltas in range and then charge against stuff it could deal with in combat. Then on the double more to bring in meltas in range of new stuff and later yet more to go around LOS blocking terrain and bring LOS to elusive character that was using speed to dodge me best it could.
Valiant meanwhile...Well T1 either it would not shoot at the flier or he would have had to race toward bad direction. This would have hurt me on objective scoring and killing stuff later costing me death of rangers on turn 4 and that final character turn 5. Incidentally would have meant loss of game.
Oh and that range makes it also great flier hunter. People talk about how valiant auto hit flamer is great flamer hunter. And sure! It's great. Problem is with 18" range you struggle to do it(And 1st turn obviously never happen as fliers go to furthest corners) and to do so you have to go into where opponent moves. Fliers have often enough range and definitely speed to move around.
And in terms of firepower castellan still packs enough to blow out alaitoc flier out. Standard flier with -1 to hit isn't even hard one. -1 to hit eldar one is something volcano lance eats for a lunch as was shown up. Might invest some more firepower against more robust flier to be on safe side.
Range on castellan is great. It gives options and allows you to dictate what castellan does. Valiant is going where opponent goes. I hate having 600 pts go where opponent wants it to go.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alexonian wrote: So I've joined the knight club, was a guy on facebook selling 4 castellans and 2 valiants,
impulse bought a castellan, thinking about adding 2 armigers, and then either ad mech or tempestus.
Not bad idea. Castellan for tank busting, then probably 2 helverins. They provide nice flexible long range firepower and warglaives provide generally dedicated tank busting and unless you are in super vehicle heavy meta where 2 vehicles/turn kill rate from castellan isn't enough you don't really NEED dedicated heavy tank power. Helverin provides already decent light tank firepower to help with say dark eldar vehicles and non-wave serpent eldar vehicles.
For ad mech or tempestus focus on objective controlling and infantry. Your knight section will deal with tanks efficiently but infantry is bigger issue.
You know; you keep saying the same thing over and over again.
Gallant and Valiant are bad because opponent dictates target.
There is very much a disconnect between actual deployment rules and your claims, along with Target choices for Valiant.
Deployment is an I-GO-You-Go format in this edition.
reserve your gallant/valiant for when there is a good targt unit close to range. or, if the opponent is scared of the given knight; use that to your advantage.
in other words: deploy tactically, or use tactics because the game is not List vs List auto-win; get better at using your units properly or quit playing.
Jean Borrower wrote: The valiant in theory is more fun. But then you’ve got it on the tip of your deployment zone and go 2nd against a gunline. You’re picking that bad boy up before you can even move it. Not fun :(
Looking at the google doc for ETC someone is bringing 3 castellans and a small batallion of ad mech. Wonder how it will do.
I would not infer anything about Knights from the ETC. The nature of how lists are matched against opponents means that you will avoid most, if not all, of the lists that counter Knights.
You don't get that luxury in a normal tournament.
I played knights on ETC in 7th...my captain paired me vs Tau which were direct counter to them...from big bot missle of death, to ghostkeel we shoot you in the ass and avoid your shields, or if you protect back then we juat ahoot you in the front...didn't end well for me at all...though I crushed all other opponents, and I never played knights before that event, nor 7th I think,lol
Yeah, there is nothing wrong with the reach of a Valiant. A Tesseract vault has guns which are all range 24 inches, and almost all of its ctan powers are range 12 to 24 inches. So, the tesseract vault is now considered a bad LOW just because of this? No way, ask necron players if they think the tesseract vault is good or not. I think the common belief is that the Tesseract vault is great!
There is very much a disconnect between actual deployment rules and your claims, along with Target choices for Valiant.
Deployment is an I-GO-You-Go format in this edition.
reserve your gallant/valiant for when there is a good targt unit close to range. or, if the opponent is scared of the given knight; use that to your advantage.
in other words: deploy tactically, or use tactics because the game is not List vs List auto-win; get better at using your units properly or quit playing.
a) knights have lot less units to deploy. Ergo he can put stuff in deep strikes etc until you are deployed. Pure knight army and it's very likely you have deployed your entire army before enemy puts up SINGLE unit to the table. And if they deploy it's stuff like warlord in corner safety or mortar team or fire prism behind LOS screen and well far away etc. You would need like 2 battallion of IG's worth of guys to get meaningful targets for valiant to come up first. And then assume they put it far forward which is far from safety as point b) below says.
b) even before valiant comes forward why he would deploy as far as possible? You don't have to. Why would he do what you want when he doesn't have to? Sure I can assume I'm playing against braindead idiot. But generally I assume I'm against reasonably sensible opponent. There's very little most units gain by standing exactly on the deployment line.
I dont' consider it deploying tactically by assuming opponent is braindead idiot who cannot do even basic deployments. I assume they can do that. Thus no matter what I'm not going to be 24.1" away. Deploying exactly on deployment line is sooo '80's.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldenfirefly wrote: Yeah, there is nothing wrong with the reach of a Valiant. A Tesseract vault has guns which are all range 24 inches, and almost all of its ctan powers are range 12 to 24 inches. So, the tesseract vault is now considered a bad LOW just because of this? No way, ask necron players if they think the tesseract vault is good or not. I think the common belief is that the Tesseract vault is great!
You realize right that 24"+8" is "bit" more than 10"+12"? And is even longer than 18"+10"?
Simple math please. 32" is "bit" different than 28" nevermind 22". 22" is NEVER reaching 1st turn anything if you go first. And 28" enemy doesn't need to deploy more than 4.001" behind DZ line and you aren't reaching with that either. And that assuming he deploys straight ahead.
And even then later it's different as you have to move toward enemy to reach ranges. To get within 12" you don't have luxury of going toward objective if opponent doesn't want. You need to go toward enemy instead. Which puts you further away from other units which means harder time reaching targets next turn. Obviously enemy will not clump ideal targets next to each other unless it benefits him(and when something benefits opponent it hurts you). 12" range and 10" movement is notably worse than 18" range and 4" movement.
You are comparing apples and oranges. Lol. Sorry buddy but epic fail.
So... 32 inches is good enough? But (18+10) 28 inches isn't? The difference between the two is just 4 inches.
Ok, if somehow, that magically transforms it from bad to good, then just take house raven and take land strider. Now, your valient is moving 10 inches, advances 2+d6, and can still fire all weapons with no penalties.
So, now the reach of that confrag cannon is (18+10+2+d6). Which works out to 33.5 inches on average, wow, its further than 32 inches now! So, now Valiant is good ?
Now thats certainly not true. If your playing unlike in 7th when you were always 24" from the enemy many of the new maps can have you at 18" apart
Secondly many armies
Such as
BA AM SM Admech
Just to name the imperial side deploy infiltrators and so 22" is reguarly enough to shoot something. Maybe not the best target but something
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldenfirefly wrote: So... 32 inches is good enough? But (18+10) 28 inches isn't? The difference between the two is just 4 inches.
Ok, if somehow, that magically transforms it from bad to good, then just take house raven and take land strider. Now, your valient is moving 10 inches, advances 2+d6, and can still fire all weapons with no penalties.
So, now the reach of that confrag cannon is (18+10+2+d6). Which works out to 33.5 inches on average, wow, its further than 32 inches now! So, now Valiant is good ?
No the valiant is still not good
1) it doesnt have enough W to justify its points - its too many eggs in one basket (I mean 2 gallants or 4 warglaives isn't much more points wise.
2) Its harpoon while cool is about as inconsistant as a weapon can get and most of the time will score 0W (it makes the deathstrike look consistant.
3) It has to get close enough to CC to fire its weapons that it is vulnerable to a counter charge and its weak in CC in comparison to other knights
4) Due to its high pts cost it will struggle to make its points back.
5) you opponent can still deploy backfield and ignore 1st turn shooting on a lot of maps
6) one reasonable weapon in range doesn't fix a vehicle which is not great for so many other reasons.
However it does look cool and even if the harpoon only W once a game its awesome when it does
A solo knight should be Raven for the Stratagem, I think. Taranis starts to be really good when you've got a lot of knights.
My 1750 point army has a Castellan, two Questoris and two Armiger knights. So that's 100 wounds. The Taranis trait adds about 20 wounds to the army. For a single Castellan it adds about 5 or 6 - which is actually quite a few so it's really not bad.
If you choose taranis for survivability, you should doublecheck your playstyle.
Krast makes a valiant/castellan/crusader good in combat, and helps vanilla fistfighters to hit on their 4+. Decimating your enemy is way better than staying safe from their shots. (less enemy models = less wounds to save)
And if you dont use your knights for cc (even with a crusader) you are doing it wrong.
If you choose taranis for survivability, you should doublecheck your playstyle.
Krast makes a valiant/castellan/crusader good in combat, and helps vanilla fistfighters to hit on their 4+. Decimating your enemy is way better than staying safe from their shots. (less enemy models = less wounds to save)
And if you dont use your knights for cc (even with a crusader) you are doing it wrong.
There’s lots here I disagree with.
Yes, to get the maximum killing power out of your knights you want them kicking things as well as shooting things. That much is pretty obvious.
Equally obvious is that lots of enemies are much more dangerous up close.
It’s true that it’s better to kill the enemy faster, so as to reduce incoming damage. But you should not be reckless about how you do it. Sometimes it’s better to leave a unit alive rather than kill it but expose your knights to a massive retaliation.
Often, the best option is to get stuck in right away. But not always. If you see an army with Guilliman hidden in the middle (or loads of comparable things) then charging in is just throwing your knights away. Far better to gun down a few razorbacks and hellblasters at range first.
you are right. i didnt say you should "allahu akbar" right in the enemy forces. but thats the tactic part of this tabletop game. should be obvious. pick your fights, and play your opponent.
PS: seems like you agree more than you disagree with my post
Taranis take 19% more damage and can potentially stand up again when they die. Sure they are not as bursty in a single turn but they will often get to fire an extra time making up for it
This list plays fast and has a weakness against flyers, but I have some autocannon options if I need them. I know that skyreapers are not as good as stormspears against almost all targets, but they are better specifically against T6 -1/-2 fliers with invul saves, which are the exact weakness of the gallant herd.
Any love for gallants with stormspear rocket pods? Seems like you keep a powerful gun (a little less powerful than the avenger/RFBC/melta) but get to keep the extra attack and WS
Seeing everyone rave about the Castellan, is it really that good for the points? At ~600 pts I would've thought it was a bit overpriced compared to the Questoris classes for some extra dakka, not much more durability and worse CC ability. Not to mention Rotate Ion Shields is 3 CP which is a big investment if you're not running an AMCP farm. If you're bringing a single big Knight to supplement an army along Armigers to round out the SHD, I would've thought a Questoris class would be the right choice for the point/CP efficiency. with Am I missing something here or is the Castellan's dakka really that ridiculous to completely justify the ~600 point investment?
Mr. Funktastic wrote: Seeing everyone rave about the Castellan, is it really that good for the points? At ~600 pts I would've thought it was a bit overpriced compared to the Questoris classes for some extra dakka, not much more durability and worse CC ability. Not to mention Rotate Ion Shields is 3 CP which is a big investment if you're not running an AMCP farm. If you're bringing a single big Knight to supplement an army along Armigers to round out the SHD, I would've thought a Questoris class would be the right choice for the point/CP efficiency. with Am I missing something here or is the Castellan's dakka really that ridiculous to completely justify the ~600 point investment?
It's guns really are that powerful and numerous. It far outperforms a Crusader.
Also, most forces won't slap in Armigers if just running a single Knight I think. Even if you run a Crusader, you're still getting pretty close to 1,000 points invested in a spin-off detachment at that point.
DoomMouse wrote: Any love for gallants with stormspear rocket pods? Seems like you keep a powerful gun (a little less powerful than the avenger/RFBC/melta) but get to keep the extra attack and WS
I have been pushing that for a while now. Contrast two setups that cost practically the same points:
EDIT: to the below, yes, that is why you see so many solo RAVEN castellans. You usually don't need to advance and shoot a castellan so the household tradition isn't missed.
If you want the benefits of a household, you need a SHD and the easiest and cheapest way to fill it out is to add 2 Armigers to one big Knight. And for a Castellan, I can imagine Raven is a huge boon to it giving it more mobility and the Order of Companions stratagem. Otherwise you're running a Freeblade.
Mr. Funktastic wrote: If you want the benefits of a household, you need a SHD and the easiest and cheapest way to fill it out is to add 2 Armigers to one big Knight. And for a Castellan, I can imagine Raven is a huge boon to it giving it more mobility and the Order of Companions stratagem. Otherwise you're running a Freeblade.
You get the stratagem anyway since the Knight codex does not limit it to non-auxillery detachments. Only for the household traditions and those are frankly not worth a 300+ point tax.
No the valiant is still not good
1) it doesnt have enough W to justify its points - its too many eggs in one basket (I mean 2 gallants or 4 warglaives isn't much more points wise.
2) Its harpoon while cool is about as inconsistant as a weapon can get and most of the time will score 0W (it makes the deathstrike look consistant.
3) It has to get close enough to CC to fire its weapons that it is vulnerable to a counter charge and its weak in CC in comparison to other knights
4) Due to its high pts cost it will struggle to make its points back.
5) you opponent can still deploy backfield and ignore 1st turn shooting on a lot of maps
6) one reasonable weapon in range doesn't fix a vehicle which is not great for so many other reasons.
However it does look cool and even if the harpoon only W once a game its awesome when it does
People complaining about the Valiant again? I swear, when will people learn that not everything is down to how long the harpoon can fire or how math works or doesn't.
1. It's got 28 wounds and you can give it Ion bulwark to give it a 4+ invul save. What more do you want? Sure you can take those other machines, if you want to be a pleb.
2. The harpoon re-rolls hits against vehicles and monsters. That's as reliable as it can get. If you're not hitting, get new dice.
3. Counter charge? What counter charge? Oh, you mean those toasted marshmellows that got too close that you flamer'd up nice and good in overwatch?
4. Never been a problem. It deletes a squad of 100-200 point troops a turn, plus a tougher unit, plus whatever wounds it gets with its cannons. Across two or three turns, you've got more than your points back, plus the strategy involved in using it.
5. That's the same to be said against any shooting army. Doesn't help them hold objectives in your deployment or in the middle of the board. If they are deploying to hide from your Valiant, that's a win to me.
6. You've also got the cannons, the melta guns, the missiles, and worst case scenario, you can charge in and stomp something to death. Yeah you're not hitting as often, but it'll be enough damage to finish off some space marines that got too close.
The Valiant is a nuanced beast. There's reasons it's so expensive. The flamer can delete a troop unit of nearly any size and save a turn. The harpoon adds to the firepower of the short-ranged melta guns that the Castellan will NEVER use, and the missiles and cannons on the shoulders that everyone seems to forget are great for reaching out and touching those things that are 'hiding' from your Valiant. With 10" of movement, the Valiant is already moving faster than most troops in the game. Yeah it's not going to win any races, and yeah the harpoon may not be in range turn 1, but if your opponent is deploying and moving to avoid your Valiant, you've already won the game. You can deny so much space with that thing, hold objectives (which people complain knights suck at, despite evidence to the contrary), and create a massive 'No U' zone that other knights can't. The Conflagration Cannon also fixes the Dominus' main weakness: close combat. I.e. it doesn't allow anything to get into close combat with it.
I've yet to have a game where my Valiant doesn't make its points back. I've yet to have a game where I think to myself "Man, I wish I had 2 Gallants instead, or a Castellan." I've yet to think "Jeez, this thing is overpriced."
You know what I have realized though? The only people that think the Valiant is overpriced are the people that haven't put one on the table and played it out.
DoomMouse wrote: Any love for gallants with stormspear rocket pods? Seems like you keep a powerful gun (a little less powerful than the avenger/RFBC/melta) but get to keep the extra attack and WS
These have got to be raven so you can still advance (which you do every turn 1 with a gallant) and still shoot. Otherwise just give it a ironstorm because it's just so cheap and good.
No the valiant is still not good
1) it doesnt have enough W to justify its points - its too many eggs in one basket (I mean 2 gallants or 4 warglaives isn't much more points wise.
2) Its harpoon while cool is about as inconsistant as a weapon can get and most of the time will score 0W (it makes the deathstrike look consistant.
3) It has to get close enough to CC to fire its weapons that it is vulnerable to a counter charge and its weak in CC in comparison to other knights
4) Due to its high pts cost it will struggle to make its points back.
5) you opponent can still deploy backfield and ignore 1st turn shooting on a lot of maps
6) one reasonable weapon in range doesn't fix a vehicle which is not great for so many other reasons.
However it does look cool and even if the harpoon only W once a game its awesome when it does
People complaining about the Valiant again? I swear, when will people learn that not everything is down to how long the harpoon can fire or how math works or doesn't.
1. It's got 28 wounds and you can give it Ion bulwark to give it a 4+ invul save. What more do you want? Sure you can take those other machines, if you want to be a pleb.
2. The harpoon re-rolls hits against vehicles and monsters. That's as reliable as it can get. If you're not hitting, get new dice.
3. Counter charge? What counter charge? Oh, you mean those toasted marshmellows that got too close that you flamer'd up nice and good in overwatch?
4. Never been a problem. It deletes a squad of 100-200 point troops a turn, plus a tougher unit, plus whatever wounds it gets with its cannons. Across two or three turns, you've got more than your points back, plus the strategy involved in using it.
5. That's the same to be said against any shooting army. Doesn't help them hold objectives in your deployment or in the middle of the board. If they are deploying to hide from your Valiant, that's a win to me.
6. You've also got the cannons, the melta guns, the missiles, and worst case scenario, you can charge in and stomp something to death. Yeah you're not hitting as often, but it'll be enough damage to finish off some space marines that got too close.
The Valiant is a nuanced beast. There's reasons it's so expensive. The flamer can delete a troop unit of nearly any size and save a turn. The harpoon adds to the firepower of the short-ranged melta guns that the Castellan will NEVER use, and the missiles and cannons on the shoulders that everyone seems to forget are great for reaching out and touching those things that are 'hiding' from your Valiant. With 10" of movement, the Valiant is already moving faster than most troops in the game. Yeah it's not going to win any races, and yeah the harpoon may not be in range turn 1, but if your opponent is deploying and moving to avoid your Valiant, you've already won the game. You can deny so much space with that thing, hold objectives (which people complain knights suck at, despite evidence to the contrary), and create a massive 'No U' zone that other knights can't. The Conflagration Cannon also fixes the Dominus' main weakness: close combat. I.e. it doesn't allow anything to get into close combat with it.
I've yet to have a game where my Valiant doesn't make its points back. I've yet to have a game where I think to myself "Man, I wish I had 2 Gallants instead, or a Castellan." I've yet to think "Jeez, this thing is overpriced."
You know what I have realized though? The only people that think the Valiant is overpriced are the people that haven't put one on the table and played it out.
People keep saying this about it's overwatch. Yeah it's not pleasnt to charge it BUT any vehical with t7 can pretty much absorb it. Shinning spears with 3++ saves and 5+FNP don't give 2 shigs about it and take you out the the rest of the game. Autarcs and captain smash can take overwatch away from you. It's really a statement of overconfidence.
The harpoon sucks because invo saves exist. A single wound? 4++ save with a reroll....okay...GG - 0 wounds.
Yeah - it's pretty good against space marines...who have practically no invo saves - lots of 2 wound models that need to get close to do damage...essentially the worst army in the game has no chance against a monster like the valliant. Most other armies do.
I play the valiant so my opponents have a chance and for no other reason.
Mr. Funktastic wrote: If you want the benefits of a household, you need a SHD and the easiest and cheapest way to fill it out is to add 2 Armigers to one big Knight. And for a Castellan, I can imagine Raven is a huge boon to it giving it more mobility and the Order of Companions stratagem. Otherwise you're running a Freeblade.
You get the stratagem anyway since the Knight codex does not limit it to non-auxillery detachments. Only for the household traditions and those are frankly not worth a 300+ point tax.
A single castellan can do without them that is true. Though I wouldn't really consider 2 herines a tax. I would consider it an asset.
I’m going to have a go with a gallant tonight. I think it might be better to have a crusader and gallant rather than an errant and warden. Same exact price, as I was putting afist on the errant anyway.
I basically realised that even though the gallant might not want to charge, I’m not really losing anything because I’ve got the same firepower anyway. I doubt my crusader will be shot early on as I’ve still got a Castellan.
Last game I just ran two wardens, which is also cool. This saves me the points for a stormspear pod, to tackle sneaky ripper swarms and mortar squads.
U02dah4 wrote: Now thats certainly not true. If your playing unlike in 7th when you were always 24" from the enemy many of the new maps can have you at 18" apart
Secondly many armies
Such as
BA AM SM Admech
Just to name the imperial side deploy infiltrators and so 22" is reguarly enough to shoot something. Maybe not the best target but something
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldenfirefly wrote: So... 32 inches is good enough? But (18+10) 28 inches isn't? The difference between the two is just 4 inches.
Ok, if somehow, that magically transforms it from bad to good, then just take house raven and take land strider. Now, your valient is moving 10 inches, advances 2+d6, and can still fire all weapons with no penalties.
So, now the reach of that confrag cannon is (18+10+2+d6). Which works out to 33.5 inches on average, wow, its further than 32 inches now! So, now Valiant is good ?
No the valiant is still not good
1) it doesnt have enough W to justify its points - its too many eggs in one basket (I mean 2 gallants or 4 warglaives isn't much more points wise.
2) Its harpoon while cool is about as inconsistant as a weapon can get and most of the time will score 0W (it makes the deathstrike look consistant.
3) It has to get close enough to CC to fire its weapons that it is vulnerable to a counter charge and its weak in CC in comparison to other knights
4) Due to its high pts cost it will struggle to make its points back.
5) you opponent can still deploy backfield and ignore 1st turn shooting on a lot of maps
6) one reasonable weapon in range doesn't fix a vehicle which is not great for so many other reasons.
However it does look cool and even if the harpoon only W once a game its awesome when it does
If the valiant is bad, than so is the castellen. The valient is stronger is the current meta as it is a hard counter to a shield captain or demon prince (or a slam captain without the ability to turn off overwatch)
If knights shift the meta enough to make it so that knights and units that counter them (shadowsworsd) are common, then the castellan is better
And it is possible n other of them are worth the points
U02dah4 wrote: Now thats certainly not true. If your playing unlike in 7th when you were always 24" from the enemy many of the new maps can have you at 18" apart
Secondly many armies
Such as
BA AM SM Admech
Just to name the imperial side deploy infiltrators and so 22" is reguarly enough to shoot something. Maybe not the best target but something
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldenfirefly wrote: So... 32 inches is good enough? But (18+10) 28 inches isn't? The difference between the two is just 4 inches.
Ok, if somehow, that magically transforms it from bad to good, then just take house raven and take land strider. Now, your valient is moving 10 inches, advances 2+d6, and can still fire all weapons with no penalties.
So, now the reach of that confrag cannon is (18+10+2+d6). Which works out to 33.5 inches on average, wow, its further than 32 inches now! So, now Valiant is good ?
No the valiant is still not good
1) it doesnt have enough W to justify its points - its too many eggs in one basket (I mean 2 gallants or 4 warglaives isn't much more points wise.
2) Its harpoon while cool is about as inconsistant as a weapon can get and most of the time will score 0W (it makes the deathstrike look consistant.
3) It has to get close enough to CC to fire its weapons that it is vulnerable to a counter charge and its weak in CC in comparison to other knights
4) Due to its high pts cost it will struggle to make its points back.
5) you opponent can still deploy backfield and ignore 1st turn shooting on a lot of maps
6) one reasonable weapon in range doesn't fix a vehicle which is not great for so many other reasons.
However it does look cool and even if the harpoon only W once a game its awesome when it does
If the valiant is bad, than so is the castellen. The valient is stronger is the current meta as it is a hard counter to a shield captain or demon prince (or a slam captain without the ability to turn off overwatch)
If knights shift the meta enough to make it so that knights and units that counter them (shadowsworsd) are common, then the castellan is better
And it is possible n other of them are worth the points
I think you will find sheild captains and daemon princes are going to fall out of style. Over-watch is easy to avoid. A gallants relic fist is not. Could easily kill 3 shield captains in a single round by slipping 2 wounds through and death gripping the other - and SC have a hard time wounding a knight also.
People keep saying this about it's overwatch. Yeah it's not pleasnt to charge it BUT any vehical with t7 can pretty much absorb it.
Valiant with the relic flamer kills a rhino in overwatch.
Aint no one taking the relic flamer. The best stratagems are in mechanicus. Imperialis is 100% non competitive (except for maybe gallants). You telling me you are going to give up the abilitity to resurect a knight...or advance and shoot your mega flamer so you can reroll wounds on a weapon you aren't even shooting turn 1? No way.
No the valiant is still not good
1) it doesnt have enough W to justify its points - its too many eggs in one basket (I mean 2 gallants or 4 warglaives isn't much more points wise.
2) Its harpoon while cool is about as inconsistant as a weapon can get and most of the time will score 0W (it makes the deathstrike look consistant.
3) It has to get close enough to CC to fire its weapons that it is vulnerable to a counter charge and its weak in CC in comparison to other knights
4) Due to its high pts cost it will struggle to make its points back.
5) you opponent can still deploy backfield and ignore 1st turn shooting on a lot of maps
6) one reasonable weapon in range doesn't fix a vehicle which is not great for so many other reasons.
However it does look cool and even if the harpoon only W once a game its awesome when it does
People complaining about the Valiant again? I swear, when will people learn that not everything is down to how long the harpoon can fire or how math works or doesn't.
1. It's got 28 wounds and you can give it Ion bulwark to give it a 4+ invul save. What more do you want? Sure you can take those other machines, if you want to be a pleb.
2. The harpoon re-rolls hits against vehicles and monsters. That's as reliable as it can get. If you're not hitting, get new dice.
3. Counter charge? What counter charge? Oh, you mean those toasted marshmellows that got too close that you flamer'd up nice and good in overwatch?
4. Never been a problem. It deletes a squad of 100-200 point troops a turn, plus a tougher unit, plus whatever wounds it gets with its cannons. Across two or three turns, you've got more than your points back, plus the strategy involved in using it.
5. That's the same to be said against any shooting army. Doesn't help them hold objectives in your deployment or in the middle of the board. If they are deploying to hide from your Valiant, that's a win to me.
6. You've also got the cannons, the melta guns, the missiles, and worst case scenario, you can charge in and stomp something to death. Yeah you're not hitting as often, but it'll be enough damage to finish off some space marines that got too close.
The Valiant is a nuanced beast. There's reasons it's so expensive. The flamer can delete a troop unit of nearly any size and save a turn. The harpoon adds to the firepower of the short-ranged melta guns that the Castellan will NEVER use, and the missiles and cannons on the shoulders that everyone seems to forget are great for reaching out and touching those things that are 'hiding' from your Valiant. With 10" of movement, the Valiant is already moving faster than most troops in the game. Yeah it's not going to win any races, and yeah the harpoon may not be in range turn 1, but if your opponent is deploying and moving to avoid your Valiant, you've already won the game. You can deny so much space with that thing, hold objectives (which people complain knights suck at, despite evidence to the contrary), and create a massive 'No U' zone that other knights can't. The Conflagration Cannon also fixes the Dominus' main weakness: close combat. I.e. it doesn't allow anything to get into close combat with it.
I've yet to have a game where my Valiant doesn't make its points back. I've yet to have a game where I think to myself "Man, I wish I had 2 Gallants instead, or a Castellan." I've yet to think "Jeez, this thing is overpriced."
You know what I have realized though? The only people that think the Valiant is overpriced are the people that haven't put one on the table and played it out.
1) 600pts for 28 or 350 for 24 sure (well 450 probably) pts per wound wise you make my pt
2) anything worth harpooning in my lists has a 4++ and if I know you have a harpoon thats a command reroll and a 75% fail rate based on invul alone - 85% miss rate total
3) ever seen a BA CPT no overwatch and 12-16Attacks and they are neverplayed so i suppose your Good (note I wont list every good CC unit
4) So yeah you make my point it never makes its points back its not lasting more than 2 turns either your opponents dead or it is
5)difference us with your egfs in 1 basket its then only geting 1 turn of shooting it will be your opponents first kill
6) yes the 17pt melta guns that dont get to fire you have convinced me its broken or not...... the missiles are ok but not for an extra 100pts
If you genuinely have yet to have a game where ots not died in 2 turns you need to playtest vs stronger opponents
Mr. Funktastic wrote: Seeing everyone rave about the Castellan, is it really that good for the points? At ~600 pts I would've thought it was a bit overpriced compared to the Questoris classes for some extra dakka, not much more durability and worse CC ability. Not to mention Rotate Ion Shields is 3 CP which is a big investment if you're not running an AMCP farm. If you're bringing a single big Knight to supplement an army along Armigers to round out the SHD, I would've thought a Questoris class would be the right choice for the point/CP efficiency. with Am I missing something here or is the Castellan's dakka really that ridiculous to completely justify the ~600 point investment?
This should answer your question.
https://pastebin.com/Ps6DPNFK Note I didn't double check the math. To much work for me right now.
Results Highlight (strategem refers to Raven's Companion one)
Spoiler:
+OUTSIDE MELTA RANGE (>12)
---vs T7 3+
A Castellan does [[23.67]], the strategem adds [[16.22]] for [[39.89]]
A TC Crusader does [[13.74]], the strategem adds [[7.15]] for [[20.89]]
A RFBC Crusader does [[12.45]], the strategem adds [[6.53]] for [[18.98]]
---vs T7 4++
A Castellan does [[13.17]], the strategem adds [[9.25]] for [[22.42]]
A TC Crusader does [[8.93]], the strategem adds [[4.41]] for [[13.34]]
A RFBC Crusader does [[9.33]], the strategem adds [[4.90]] for [[14.23]]
---vs T8 3+
A Castellan does [[20.44]], the strategem adds [[13.66]] for [[34.10]]
A TC Crusader does [[12.96]], the strategem adds [[6.74]] for [[19.70]]
A RFBC Crusader does [[10.63]], the strategem adds [[5.32]] for [[15.95]]
A Castellan is does about twice the damage of a Crusader.
A Castellen is either worth way more points than GW is saying it is, in which case I wouldn't like to have one just about ready to take to the table just before Big FAQ 2 or CA 2018 as I suspect it to get nerf batted.
Or GW has over priced the questorus class shooting weapons. Right now I'm not sure which applies most.
Mr. Funktastic wrote: Seeing everyone rave about the Castellan, is it really that good for the points? At ~600 pts I would've thought it was a bit overpriced compared to the Questoris classes for some extra dakka, not much more durability and worse CC ability. Not to mention Rotate Ion Shields is 3 CP which is a big investment if you're not running an AMCP farm. If you're bringing a single big Knight to supplement an army along Armigers to round out the SHD, I would've thought a Questoris class would be the right choice for the point/CP efficiency. with Am I missing something here or is the Castellan's dakka really that ridiculous to completely justify the ~600 point investment?
This should answer your question.
https://pastebin.com/Ps6DPNFK Note I didn't double check the math. To much work for me right now.
Results Highlight (strategem refers to Raven's Companion one)
Spoiler:
+OUTSIDE MELTA RANGE (>12)
---vs T7 3+
A Castellan does [[23.67]], the strategem adds [[16.22]] for [[39.89]]
A TC Crusader does [[13.74]], the strategem adds [[7.15]] for [[20.89]]
A RFBC Crusader does [[12.45]], the strategem adds [[6.53]] for [[18.98]]
---vs T7 4++
A Castellan does [[13.17]], the strategem adds [[9.25]] for [[22.42]]
A TC Crusader does [[8.93]], the strategem adds [[4.41]] for [[13.34]]
A RFBC Crusader does [[9.33]], the strategem adds [[4.90]] for [[14.23]]
---vs T8 3+
A Castellan does [[20.44]], the strategem adds [[13.66]] for [[34.10]]
A TC Crusader does [[12.96]], the strategem adds [[6.74]] for [[19.70]]
A RFBC Crusader does [[10.63]], the strategem adds [[5.32]] for [[15.95]]
A Castellan is does about twice the damage of a Crusader.
Vs t3 1W 5+ outside of 12"
Castellan kills 8.1 guardsman
Vs t3 1 W rfbc + Agc=11 dead guardsman so crusader is 33% more effective at shooting
Now if we factor in the 25% extra damage output of the crusader in melee it is clear that in both the crusader deals far more damage than the castellan.
As an infantry guard player i know which i fear faceing more.
You have cherry picked high strength targets and determined that high strength weapons do better against them missing the point that different weapons are effective vs different targets. The castellan does little against a hoard infantry army its devestateing vs a line of russes.
A crusader taking 1 AV weapon and 1 anti infantry will fire its guns at different targets it also supplements its shooting with CC where as the castellan normally uses its shooting alone
Also if we factor in say a 5++ to the t8 say firing at a knight the avenger will become no less effective but most of the castellen damage will reduce by 1/3. You will also find far more situations where the castellan overkills and so wastes damage far less common with the avenger you can do 6 danage to a guardsman but only 1 counts
Im not saying the castellan is bad by comparison but theor used differently selecting optimal targets for 1 is not a fair comparison
A fairer test would be to compare 4 crusaders vs 3 castellans vs a variety of lists and with exception of vehicle heavy lists the crusaders will probably be more effective due to there flexibility and increased survivability
U02dah4 wrote: Now thats certainly not true. If your playing unlike in 7th when you were always 24" from the enemy many of the new maps can have you at 18" apart
Secondly many armies
Such as
BA AM SM Admech
Just to name the imperial side deploy infiltrators and so 22" is reguarly enough to shoot something. Maybe not the best target but something
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldenfirefly wrote: So... 32 inches is good enough? But (18+10) 28 inches isn't? The difference between the two is just 4 inches.
Ok, if somehow, that magically transforms it from bad to good, then just take house raven and take land strider. Now, your valient is moving 10 inches, advances 2+d6, and can still fire all weapons with no penalties.
So, now the reach of that confrag cannon is (18+10+2+d6). Which works out to 33.5 inches on average, wow, its further than 32 inches now! So, now Valiant is good ?
No the valiant is still not good
1) it doesnt have enough W to justify its points - its too many eggs in one basket (I mean 2 gallants or 4 warglaives isn't much more points wise.
2) Its harpoon while cool is about as inconsistant as a weapon can get and most of the time will score 0W (it makes the deathstrike look consistant.
3) It has to get close enough to CC to fire its weapons that it is vulnerable to a counter charge and its weak in CC in comparison to other knights
4) Due to its high pts cost it will struggle to make its points back.
5) you opponent can still deploy backfield and ignore 1st turn shooting on a lot of maps
6) one reasonable weapon in range doesn't fix a vehicle which is not great for so many other reasons.
However it does look cool and even if the harpoon only W once a game its awesome when it does
If the valiant is bad, than so is the castellen. The valient is stronger is the current meta as it is a hard counter to a shield captain or demon prince (or a slam captain without the ability to turn off overwatch)
If knights shift the meta enough to make it so that knights and units that counter them (shadowsworsd) are common, then the castellan is better
And it is possible n other of them are worth the points
I think you will find sheild captains and daemon princes are going to fall out of style. Over-watch is easy to avoid. A gallants relic fist is not. Could easily kill 3 shield captains in a single round by slipping 2 wounds through and death gripping the other - and SC have a hard time wounding a knight also.
People keep saying this about it's overwatch. Yeah it's not pleasnt to charge it BUT any vehical with t7 can pretty much absorb it.
Valiant with the relic flamer kills a rhino in overwatch.
Aint no one taking the relic flamer. The best stratagems are in mechanicus. Imperialis is 100% non competitive (except for maybe gallants). You telling me you are going to give up the abilitity to resurect a knight...or advance and shoot your mega flamer so you can reroll wounds on a weapon you aren't even shooting turn 1? No way.
Watching two competitive players play test games for nova. I'd say the one taking knights (testing both of them) flat disagrees with you. And so does his opponent playing deldar.
Frankly, 18 inches is the game. If you are really playing a game against someone where a 28 inch threat range doesn't cut it, congrats, you win, cause the dumbass your playing is castling in the corner and you're outscoring him every turn regardless of how much damage he does. But here in the real world, competitive armies are rocking heavy melee hammers and plenty of short range firepower.
The valiant is flat better in the current meta of armies. No one is rocking mass t8. If the meta shifts, and it could now that knights are out, the castellan could easily come out on top. But if the valiant is really just not cost effective ever, than neither will the Castellan be, and you are better taking smaller knights.
Yeah, people need to stop thinking only about rival knight lists. You will face lots of other types of lists. And many of those lists will play to objectives against our knight lists because how many lists have enough fire power to use shooting to blow away an entire knight army?
Valiant is good in many situations. Stop using the one situation of long ranged firepower to justify that it is bad. Valiant wasn't designed to stand at 48 inches and shoot away. If long ranged shooting is the only criteria that wins games, might as well just bring 3 shadowswords along with imperial guard and call it a day.
I think that mechanicus knights are the best solution to add knights into army. I was not sure which House to go for (raven, krast or taranis), so I decided to go for taranis. Raven was already very solid choice, due to their stratagem (my list building tailors around shooty knights backed up with guard), but taranis has a very good synergy with ion bulwark and other stuff that makes them resilient. Hawkshroud was the very first option, because of their allies stratagem, but mechanicus knights can also do what their doctrine basicly does (using top row for stats). I'm planning to get big force of knights for apocalypse games, mostly shooty stuff, and I've been doing alot of brainstorming for best House to choose from. What do you guys think?
Mr. Funktastic wrote: Seeing everyone rave about the Castellan, is it really that good for the points? At ~600 pts I would've thought it was a bit overpriced compared to the Questoris classes for some extra dakka, not much more durability and worse CC ability. Not to mention Rotate Ion Shields is 3 CP which is a big investment if you're not running an AMCP farm. If you're bringing a single big Knight to supplement an army along Armigers to round out the SHD, I would've thought a Questoris class would be the right choice for the point/CP efficiency. with Am I missing something here or is the Castellan's dakka really that ridiculous to completely justify the ~600 point investment?
This should answer your question.
https://pastebin.com/Ps6DPNFK Note I didn't double check the math. To much work for me right now.
Results Highlight (strategem refers to Raven's Companion one)
Spoiler:
+OUTSIDE MELTA RANGE (>12)
---vs T7 3+
A Castellan does [[23.67]], the strategem adds [[16.22]] for [[39.89]]
A TC Crusader does [[13.74]], the strategem adds [[7.15]] for [[20.89]]
A RFBC Crusader does [[12.45]], the strategem adds [[6.53]] for [[18.98]]
---vs T7 4++
A Castellan does [[13.17]], the strategem adds [[9.25]] for [[22.42]]
A TC Crusader does [[8.93]], the strategem adds [[4.41]] for [[13.34]]
A RFBC Crusader does [[9.33]], the strategem adds [[4.90]] for [[14.23]]
---vs T8 3+
A Castellan does [[20.44]], the strategem adds [[13.66]] for [[34.10]]
A TC Crusader does [[12.96]], the strategem adds [[6.74]] for [[19.70]]
A RFBC Crusader does [[10.63]], the strategem adds [[5.32]] for [[15.95]]
A Castellan is does about twice the damage of a Crusader.
Vs t3 1W 5+ outside of 12"
Castellan kills 8.1 guardsman
Vs t3 1 W rfbc + Agc=11 dead guardsman so crusader is 33% more effective at shooting
Now if we factor in the 25% extra damage output of the crusader in melee it is clear that in both the crusader deals far more damage than the castellan.
As an infantry guard player i know which i fear faceing more.
You have cherry picked high strength targets and determined that high strength weapons do better against them missing the point that different weapons are effective vs different targets. The castellan does little against a hoard infantry army its devestateing vs a line of russes.
A crusader taking 1 AV weapon and 1 anti infantry will fire its guns at different targets it also supplements its shooting with CC where as the castellan normally uses its shooting alone
Also if we factor in say a 5++ to the t8 say firing at a knight the avenger will become no less effective but most of the castellen damage will reduce by 1/3. You will also find far more situations where the castellan overkills and so wastes damage far less common with the avenger you can do 6 danage to a guardsman but only 1 counts
Im not saying the castellan is bad by comparison but theor used differently selecting optimal targets for 1 is not a fair comparison
A fairer test would be to compare 4 crusaders vs 3 castellans vs a variety of lists and with exception of vehicle heavy lists the crusaders will probably be more effective due to there flexibility and increased survivability
Nobody cares how many Guardsmen a 500 or 600 point model kills. It's an utter waste of a shooting phase for both.
On almost any reasonable target the Castellan seriously outperforms the Crusader.
stratigo wrote: Watching two competitive players play test games for nova. I'd say the one taking knights (testing both of them) flat disagrees with you. And so does his opponent playing deldar.
Frankly, 18 inches is the game. If you are really playing a game against someone where a 28 inch threat range doesn't cut it, congrats, you win, cause the dumbass your playing is castling in the corner and you're outscoring him every turn regardless of how much damage he does. But here in the real world, competitive armies are rocking heavy melee hammers and plenty of short range firepower.
The valiant is flat better in the current meta of armies. No one is rocking mass t8. If the meta shifts, and it could now that knights are out, the castellan could easily come out on top. But if the valiant is really just not cost effective ever, than neither will the Castellan be, and you are better taking smaller knights.
Looking at the math I remain unconvinced. Even when shooting at a t6 3+ -2 to hit target (like an alaitoc flier) the Valiant with relic flamer only performs slightly better then a Castellan with relic plasma and companion stratagem. 14 vs 11 wounds (only counting main guns since the rest of the weapons are equal, and not accounting for re-roll 1's on the number of shots because its to early in the morning).
And that's a scenario well in the Valiants favor.
The Harpoon is simply to unreliable and your going to go entire games without it hitting.
If the Valiant had a 'real' second gun I would love it, now it just looks meh. The Flamer isn't good enough for me on its own.
Mr. Funktastic wrote: Seeing everyone rave about the Castellan, is it really that good for the points? At ~600 pts I would've thought it was a bit overpriced compared to the Questoris classes for some extra dakka, not much more durability and worse CC ability. Not to mention Rotate Ion Shields is 3 CP which is a big investment if you're not running an AMCP farm. If you're bringing a single big Knight to supplement an army along Armigers to round out the SHD, I would've thought a Questoris class would be the right choice for the point/CP efficiency. with Am I missing something here or is the Castellan's dakka really that ridiculous to completely justify the ~600 point investment?
This should answer your question.
https://pastebin.com/Ps6DPNFK Note I didn't double check the math. To much work for me right now.
Results Highlight (strategem refers to Raven's Companion one)
Spoiler:
+OUTSIDE MELTA RANGE (>12)
---vs T7 3+
A Castellan does [[23.67]], the strategem adds [[16.22]] for [[39.89]]
A TC Crusader does [[13.74]], the strategem adds [[7.15]] for [[20.89]]
A RFBC Crusader does [[12.45]], the strategem adds [[6.53]] for [[18.98]]
---vs T7 4++
A Castellan does [[13.17]], the strategem adds [[9.25]] for [[22.42]]
A TC Crusader does [[8.93]], the strategem adds [[4.41]] for [[13.34]]
A RFBC Crusader does [[9.33]], the strategem adds [[4.90]] for [[14.23]]
---vs T8 3+
A Castellan does [[20.44]], the strategem adds [[13.66]] for [[34.10]]
A TC Crusader does [[12.96]], the strategem adds [[6.74]] for [[19.70]]
A RFBC Crusader does [[10.63]], the strategem adds [[5.32]] for [[15.95]]
A Castellan is does about twice the damage of a Crusader.
Vs t3 1W 5+ outside of 12"
Castellan kills 8.1 guardsman
Vs t3 1 W rfbc + Agc=11 dead guardsman so crusader is 33% more effective at shooting
Now if we factor in the 25% extra damage output of the crusader in melee it is clear that in both the crusader deals far more damage than the castellan.
As an infantry guard player i know which i fear faceing more.
You have cherry picked high strength targets and determined that high strength weapons do better against them missing the point that different weapons are effective vs different targets. The castellan does little against a hoard infantry army its devestateing vs a line of russes.
A crusader taking 1 AV weapon and 1 anti infantry will fire its guns at different targets it also supplements its shooting with CC where as the castellan normally uses its shooting alone
Also if we factor in say a 5++ to the t8 say firing at a knight the avenger will become no less effective but most of the castellen damage will reduce by 1/3. You will also find far more situations where the castellan overkills and so wastes damage far less common with the avenger you can do 6 danage to a guardsman but only 1 counts
Im not saying the castellan is bad by comparison but theor used differently selecting optimal targets for 1 is not a fair comparison
A fairer test would be to compare 4 crusaders vs 3 castellans vs a variety of lists and with exception of vehicle heavy lists the crusaders will probably be more effective due to there flexibility and increased survivability
If I worry about killing hordes I don't bring a Knight for the job. I bring a knight to kill big scary things.
Mr. Funktastic wrote: Seeing everyone rave about the Castellan, is it really that good for the points? At ~600 pts I would've thought it was a bit overpriced compared to the Questoris classes for some extra dakka, not much more durability and worse CC ability. Not to mention Rotate Ion Shields is 3 CP which is a big investment if you're not running an AMCP farm. If you're bringing a single big Knight to supplement an army along Armigers to round out the SHD, I would've thought a Questoris class would be the right choice for the point/CP efficiency. with Am I missing something here or is the Castellan's dakka really that ridiculous to completely justify the ~600 point investment?
This should answer your question.
https://pastebin.com/Ps6DPNFK Note I didn't double check the math. To much work for me right now.
Results Highlight (strategem refers to Raven's Companion one)
Spoiler:
+OUTSIDE MELTA RANGE (>12)
---vs T7 3+
A Castellan does [[23.67]], the strategem adds [[16.22]] for [[39.89]]
A TC Crusader does [[13.74]], the strategem adds [[7.15]] for [[20.89]]
A RFBC Crusader does [[12.45]], the strategem adds [[6.53]] for [[18.98]]
---vs T7 4++
A Castellan does [[13.17]], the strategem adds [[9.25]] for [[22.42]]
A TC Crusader does [[8.93]], the strategem adds [[4.41]] for [[13.34]]
A RFBC Crusader does [[9.33]], the strategem adds [[4.90]] for [[14.23]]
---vs T8 3+
A Castellan does [[20.44]], the strategem adds [[13.66]] for [[34.10]]
A TC Crusader does [[12.96]], the strategem adds [[6.74]] for [[19.70]]
A RFBC Crusader does [[10.63]], the strategem adds [[5.32]] for [[15.95]]
A Castellan is does about twice the damage of a Crusader.
Vs t3 1W 5+ outside of 12"
Castellan kills 8.1 guardsman
Vs t3 1 W rfbc + Agc=11 dead guardsman so crusader is 33% more effective at shooting
Now if we factor in the 25% extra damage output of the crusader in melee it is clear that in both the crusader deals far more damage than the castellan.
As an infantry guard player i know which i fear faceing more.
You have cherry picked high strength targets and determined that high strength weapons do better against them missing the point that different weapons are effective vs different targets. The castellan does little against a hoard infantry army its devestateing vs a line of russes.
A crusader taking 1 AV weapon and 1 anti infantry will fire its guns at different targets it also supplements its shooting with CC where as the castellan normally uses its shooting alone
Also if we factor in say a 5++ to the t8 say firing at a knight the avenger will become no less effective but most of the castellen damage will reduce by 1/3. You will also find far more situations where the castellan overkills and so wastes damage far less common with the avenger you can do 6 danage to a guardsman but only 1 counts
Im not saying the castellan is bad by comparison but theor used differently selecting optimal targets for 1 is not a fair comparison
A fairer test would be to compare 4 crusaders vs 3 castellans vs a variety of lists and with exception of vehicle heavy lists the crusaders will probably be more effective due to there flexibility and increased survivability
Nobody cares how many Guardsmen a 500 or 600 point model kills. It's an utter waste of a shooting phase for both.
On almost any reasonable target the Castellan seriously outperforms the Crusader.
I can only think of 2 armies I've faced all year at tournaments (2x ik)
That did not have some form of Infantry
Guardsman
Geanstealer
Marine
Custodes
Dark reaper
Etc
I can think of a fair few armies that did not have that big threat.the castellan wants to target
Custodes lists, BA, Lists, tau, marines
The crusader is always partially effective and against most lists it can fire the avenger vs infantry and TC vs vehicle.
Sure if you set the standard whats the best shooty knight for killing T8 its going to do well (most other knights will however CC ithose targets effectively) however against that custodes/ba type army its certainly not the best shooting.
Flexibility is valuable on a mod which is 25%+ of your army and while the castellan will pwrform well vs one army it wont perform well vs a lot of builds
If your only bringing 1 knight you will have other units to deal with infantry, units I suspect will be more point efficient shooting at guardsmen then any knight will be.
If your bringing multiple knights I certainly see the value of bringing anti infantry but you still want stuff to take out big things that threaten your knights.
Marines and BA will likely have tanks. And even shooting at Primaris is not above a Castellan (tho It will probably be a bit worse at it then a Crusader) with 2 damage plasma and likely 2 dmg on the siegebreakers (re-rolling 1's from Companion strat)
Tau will have hammerheads or Riptides, if not both.
Custodes bikers, tho a Crusader will be about as good for less cost.
A Castellan isn't the be all end all always best knight to bring. But the original question was if your adding a single knight to an existing army, wouldn't a Questoris be more efficient?
And I don't see the point in adding a Knight to an existing army to hunt basic infantry with it.
Your doing it to hunt big threats. Tanks, Monsters or other Knights and then the Castellan is more efficient then a Crusader in points.
One of my favorite traps in this game, and it is far more of a trap in 8th, is the seeing if a really powerfull or useful weapon and forgetting that the model has other weapons.
Case-in-point; the Valiant: much in the same way that the Castellan's nipplemeltas are forgotten/ignored/seen as wasted points, the Valiant's carapace weapons are ignored or forgotten in the complaints about its range.
Unless you are running a Raven lance; you shouldn't be advancing first turn. Just walk forward and fire the shoulder cannons and a missile. By turn 2 you should be in range of a proper target for at least 1 of the arm cannons. Yes, this is going to require some tactical maneuvering on your part; but, gasp, tactics should be a part of your miniatures wargame.
The Gallant is the only knight that really must get stuck in ASAP, hitting your opponent's front lines. The Valiant can shoot any target starting at first turn; Raven just means that you should be able to hit their lines with the scary guns as well.
And I have said it several times before but it is still showing up: Paragon Guantlet on a Gallant is Overkill and unnecessary; it is better on a Knight with a Gun, who gets more value out of it.
Kommissar Kel wrote: One of my favorite traps in this game, and it is far more of a trap in 8th, is the seeing if a really powerfull or useful weapon and forgetting that the model has other weapons.
Case-in-point; the Valiant: much in the same way that the Castellan's nipplemeltas are forgotten/ignored/seen as wasted points, the Valiant's carapace weapons are ignored or forgotten in the complaints about its range.
Unless you are running a Raven lance; you shouldn't be advancing first turn. Just walk forward and fire the shoulder cannons and a missile. By turn 2 you should be in range of a proper target for at least 1 of the arm cannons. Yes, this is going to require some tactical maneuvering on your part; but, gasp, tactics should be a part of your miniatures wargame.
The Gallant is the only knight that really must get stuck in ASAP, hitting your opponent's front lines. The Valiant can shoot any target starting at first turn; Raven just means that you should be able to hit their lines with the scary guns as well.
And I have said it several times before but it is still showing up: Paragon Guantlet on a Gallant is Overkill and unnecessary; it is better on a Knight with a Gun, who gets more value out of it.
The carapace weapons tend to be ignored because the Castallen has the same guns but gets a full extra turn of shooting with its main weapons over a non-Raven valiant.
Which is a big deal for a model that is likely to be focused and killed asap.
So my game last night ended up being against a guy with 5 smash captains. In fact the whole list was incredibly well designed to beat knights, and that’s what it did.
He had a guard battalion with a unit of 10 crusaders, a deathwatch battalion (with 2 smash captains) and a BA supreme command detachment with 3 smash captains and Mephiston. I had a Tanaris Castellan, Crusader, Gallant and two warglaives.
His main approach was to have really good invulnerable saves on everything I could shoot. So his 3 10-man deathwatch vet squads each had 3 storm shields, and he had the 10 crusaders with a primaris psyker buffing their saves to 2+. I cleared away the guard infantry squads and one of the DW squads easily enough, but the remaining DW guys and crusaders tied up my armigers while the captains smashed knights.
Mission was ascension, which was a pretty awful one for me. Go to the middle of the board and get jumped on by smash captains, or else just watch from the back line as they pile up VPs.
So this was useful practice for my forthcoming tournament, because it showed me a load of things to not do. For instance, I should not have had my castellan charge a DW squad to help out an armiger that they’d locked. He made all his storm shield saves and was then able to charge my knight with all his captains, and no overwatch. I should have stayed far away, out of combat. The problem was that the only target by that point was a crusader squad with 2+ invulnerable saves.
So I guess my plan in future is to hope I don’t get that draw again! And if I do, stand on the back line, firing everything into the crusaders first of all. An invincible screen is a pretty big problem.
Honestly, the way to fix the Valiant is to make the Conflagration Cannon and the Thundercoil Harpoon Assault weapons. The Valiant can advance in its first turn and take a hit on accuracy for its twin Meltaguns and the Thundercoil Harpoon and being unable to use its Carapace weapons, but it will likely get to use the Conflagration Cannon. All it really needs is some speed and the ability to use its main weapons at said speed. Honestly, if they made it turn all its weapons into Assault (keeping the penalty for Assault weapons so the House Raven benefit still does something), it would be halfway decent. Probably still not on par with the Castellan, but not wildly off the way things are now.
Drachii wrote: Did you get any use out of Shieldbreaker missiles given the profusion of invulnerable saves your opponent seemed to be toting?
Yep. First turn I took out his warlord with one, and then later I did 3 wounds to a BA captain - who was saved from death by the death company FNP.
Doing this used up 4 of my 9 CPs though, so I'm not sure if it was worth it. My opponent never ran out of CPs even without the IG guy.
A mass of really good invulnerable saves is difficult for anyone to deal with, to be fair. The DW squads were particularly nasty, with 10 storm bolters protected by 3 storm shields. They did struggle to wound my knights, but they did a good job of shielding the captains and tying me up. Each squad also had a terminator, who made them fearless and tanked stuff like stubber shots. My opponent was pretty lucky with his saves too.
I tried using the stratagem to have a knight explode on a 4+, but it didn't go bang even with another CP used on a reroll - and then I was out of CPs. Sad times :(
One thing knights lack is a source of really heavy dakka. I'm not too sure whether there's a way around that to be honest. They've got lots of powerful shots but sometimes what you really want is just a bunch of hurricane bolters.
U02dah4 wrote: Now thats certainly not true. If your playing unlike in 7th when you were always 24" from the enemy many of the new maps can have you at 18" apart
Secondly many armies
Such as
BA AM SM Admech
Just to name the imperial side deploy infiltrators and so 22" is reguarly enough to shoot something. Maybe not the best target but something
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldenfirefly wrote: So... 32 inches is good enough? But (18+10) 28 inches isn't? The difference between the two is just 4 inches.
Ok, if somehow, that magically transforms it from bad to good, then just take house raven and take land strider. Now, your valient is moving 10 inches, advances 2+d6, and can still fire all weapons with no penalties.
So, now the reach of that confrag cannon is (18+10+2+d6). Which works out to 33.5 inches on average, wow, its further than 32 inches now! So, now Valiant is good ?
No the valiant is still not good
1) it doesnt have enough W to justify its points - its too many eggs in one basket (I mean 2 gallants or 4 warglaives isn't much more points wise.
2) Its harpoon while cool is about as inconsistant as a weapon can get and most of the time will score 0W (it makes the deathstrike look consistant.
3) It has to get close enough to CC to fire its weapons that it is vulnerable to a counter charge and its weak in CC in comparison to other knights
4) Due to its high pts cost it will struggle to make its points back.
5) you opponent can still deploy backfield and ignore 1st turn shooting on a lot of maps
6) one reasonable weapon in range doesn't fix a vehicle which is not great for so many other reasons.
However it does look cool and even if the harpoon only W once a game its awesome when it does
If the valiant is bad, than so is the castellen. The valient is stronger is the current meta as it is a hard counter to a shield captain or demon prince (or a slam captain without the ability to turn off overwatch)
If knights shift the meta enough to make it so that knights and units that counter them (shadowsworsd) are common, then the castellan is better
And it is possible n other of them are worth the points
I think you will find sheild captains and daemon princes are going to fall out of style. Over-watch is easy to avoid. A gallants relic fist is not. Could easily kill 3 shield captains in a single round by slipping 2 wounds through and death gripping the other - and SC have a hard time wounding a knight also.
People keep saying this about it's overwatch. Yeah it's not pleasnt to charge it BUT any vehical with t7 can pretty much absorb it.
Valiant with the relic flamer kills a rhino in overwatch.
Aint no one taking the relic flamer. The best stratagems are in mechanicus. Imperialis is 100% non competitive (except for maybe gallants). You telling me you are going to give up the abilitity to resurect a knight...or advance and shoot your mega flamer so you can reroll wounds on a weapon you aren't even shooting turn 1? No way.
Watching two competitive players play test games for nova. I'd say the one taking knights (testing both of them) flat disagrees with you. And so does his opponent playing deldar.
Frankly, 18 inches is the game. If you are really playing a game against someone where a 28 inch threat range doesn't cut it, congrats, you win, cause the dumbass your playing is castling in the corner and you're outscoring him every turn regardless of how much damage he does. But here in the real world, competitive armies are rocking heavy melee hammers and plenty of short range firepower.
The valiant is flat better in the current meta of armies. No one is rocking mass t8. If the meta shifts, and it could now that knights are out, the castellan could easily come out on top. But if the valiant is really just not cost effective ever, than neither will the Castellan be, and you are better taking smaller knights.
28 inch threat range is easily countered by being 28.1 inches away turn 1 (it's actually 30 inch base threat range). Which is pretty dang common to do anyways - smart players don't line up to get shot by 3d6 auto hit weapons. 600 point models that do nothing turn 1 are useless. It has to be Raven - which also increases your chances of using the harpoon and the melta guns. There are other tricks too - like the landstrider WL trait and bringing GMan along which are just good ideas to consider when bringing a valiant. With the combination of those 2 traits - you are looking at a 34-39 inch threat range AND 28-33 with your meltas and harpoon. Play you charge at a plus 3 too.
casvalremdeikun wrote: Honestly, the way to fix the Valiant is to make the Conflagration Cannon and the Thundercoil Harpoon Assault weapons. The Valiant can advance in its first turn and take a hit on accuracy for its twin Meltaguns and the Thundercoil Harpoon and being unable to use its Carapace weapons, but it will likely get to use the Conflagration Cannon. All it really needs is some speed and the ability to use its main weapons at said speed. Honestly, if they made it turn all its weapons into Assault (keeping the penalty for Assault weapons so the House Raven benefit still does something), it would be halfway decent. Probably still not on par with the Castellan, but not wildly off the way things are now.
That... Is surprisingly balanced for a player-proposed fix.
Another option would be a fluff-justified addition to the move characteristic. What I mean by that is if the fluff stated that the dual plasma reactors output more power to locomotion(not having to feed the decimator and volcano cannon); then increasing the move to a Questoris chassis values, the Valiant would be better at getting up close enough to use the scary guns.
Ordana: I had touched on that with the Castellan forgetting about the nipplemeltas.
Both knights are looked at as being locled into very different range-bands; but the designer's thoughts(while being bad at math) was clearly for all Knights to fight close-in with the Castellan getting an extra turn of shooting while the Valiant is suppoed to do more damage when it gets in range to even it all out. But, again, while at a glance it does look that way; the reality is that the Castellan will do as much if not more damage vs any enemy when used in the exact same way(moving forward from turn 1, hunting down any targets of opportunity/ priority)
Read the br and boy did the players misplay. Letting easy charges against dominatus clases. Lol. Smaller knights front!
Then to top off they showed just how pathetic the shrine is. Repair 2 wounds to go to 3. With number of knights coming what did he expect? Pull back, use strategem to shoot, if possible put knight between to prevent charge. At least you do something to enemy to make up for letting easy charge.
Result was as expected though. Mainly shooty knights vs more h2h with paladins and errants. Without dominatus screwups would have been worse for duncan
Drachii wrote: Did you get any use out of Shieldbreaker missiles given the profusion of invulnerable saves your opponent seemed to be toting?
Yep. First turn I took out his warlord with one, and then later I did 3 wounds to a BA captain - who was saved from death by the death company FNP.
Doing this used up 4 of my 9 CPs though, so I'm not sure if it was worth it. My opponent never ran out of CPs even without the IG guy.
A mass of really good invulnerable saves is difficult for anyone to deal with, to be fair. The DW squads were particularly nasty, with 10 storm bolters protected by 3 storm shields. They did struggle to wound my knights, but they did a good job of shielding the captains and tying me up. Each squad also had a terminator, who made them fearless and tanked stuff like stubber shots. My opponent was pretty lucky with his saves too.
I tried using the stratagem to have a knight explode on a 4+, but it didn't go bang even with another CP used on a reroll - and then I was out of CPs. Sad times :(
One thing knights lack is a source of really heavy dakka. I'm not too sure whether there's a way around that to be honest. They've got lots of powerful shots but sometimes what you really want is just a bunch of hurricane bolters.
I think that comes from your cp battery
3 infantry squads + 3 mortar HWT teams
Drachii wrote: Did you get any use out of Shieldbreaker missiles given the profusion of invulnerable saves your opponent seemed to be toting?
Yep. First turn I took out his warlord with one, and then later I did 3 wounds to a BA captain - who was saved from death by the death company FNP.
Doing this used up 4 of my 9 CPs though, so I'm not sure if it was worth it. My opponent never ran out of CPs even without the IG guy.
A mass of really good invulnerable saves is difficult for anyone to deal with, to be fair. The DW squads were particularly nasty, with 10 storm bolters protected by 3 storm shields. They did struggle to wound my knights, but they did a good job of shielding the captains and tying me up. Each squad also had a terminator, who made them fearless and tanked stuff like stubber shots. My opponent was pretty lucky with his saves too.
I tried using the stratagem to have a knight explode on a 4+, but it didn't go bang even with another CP used on a reroll - and then I was out of CPs. Sad times :(
One thing knights lack is a source of really heavy dakka. I'm not too sure whether there's a way around that to be honest. They've got lots of powerful shots but sometimes what you really want is just a bunch of hurricane bolters.
I think that comes from your cp battery
3 infantry squads + 3 mortar HWT teams
Maybe so, yes. I've considered using something like taurox primes for some extra weight of fire. But at 1750 it's difficult to get a detachment that does much - other than get shot dead.
Paintingscions as House Terryn House guard. Question is do I paint armor silver with gold trim and blue cloth to more closely match the gw knight pilot models or blue armor gold trim white cloth?
U02dah4 wrote: Now thats certainly not true. If your playing unlike in 7th when you were always 24" from the enemy many of the new maps can have you at 18" apart
Secondly many armies
Such as
BA AM SM Admech
Just to name the imperial side deploy infiltrators and so 22" is reguarly enough to shoot something. Maybe not the best target but something
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldenfirefly wrote: So... 32 inches is good enough? But (18+10) 28 inches isn't? The difference between the two is just 4 inches.
Ok, if somehow, that magically transforms it from bad to good, then just take house raven and take land strider. Now, your valient is moving 10 inches, advances 2+d6, and can still fire all weapons with no penalties.
So, now the reach of that confrag cannon is (18+10+2+d6). Which works out to 33.5 inches on average, wow, its further than 32 inches now! So, now Valiant is good ?
No the valiant is still not good
1) it doesnt have enough W to justify its points - its too many eggs in one basket (I mean 2 gallants or 4 warglaives isn't much more points wise.
2) Its harpoon while cool is about as inconsistant as a weapon can get and most of the time will score 0W (it makes the deathstrike look consistant.
3) It has to get close enough to CC to fire its weapons that it is vulnerable to a counter charge and its weak in CC in comparison to other knights
4) Due to its high pts cost it will struggle to make its points back.
5) you opponent can still deploy backfield and ignore 1st turn shooting on a lot of maps
6) one reasonable weapon in range doesn't fix a vehicle which is not great for so many other reasons.
However it does look cool and even if the harpoon only W once a game its awesome when it does
If the valiant is bad, than so is the castellen. The valient is stronger is the current meta as it is a hard counter to a shield captain or demon prince (or a slam captain without the ability to turn off overwatch)
If knights shift the meta enough to make it so that knights and units that counter them (shadowsworsd) are common, then the castellan is better
And it is possible n other of them are worth the points
I think you will find sheild captains and daemon princes are going to fall out of style. Over-watch is easy to avoid. A gallants relic fist is not. Could easily kill 3 shield captains in a single round by slipping 2 wounds through and death gripping the other - and SC have a hard time wounding a knight also.
People keep saying this about it's overwatch. Yeah it's not pleasnt to charge it BUT any vehical with t7 can pretty much absorb it.
Valiant with the relic flamer kills a rhino in overwatch.
Aint no one taking the relic flamer. The best stratagems are in mechanicus. Imperialis is 100% non competitive (except for maybe gallants). You telling me you are going to give up the abilitity to resurect a knight...or advance and shoot your mega flamer so you can reroll wounds on a weapon you aren't even shooting turn 1? No way.
Watching two competitive players play test games for nova. I'd say the one taking knights (testing both of them) flat disagrees with you. And so does his opponent playing deldar.
Frankly, 18 inches is the game. If you are really playing a game against someone where a 28 inch threat range doesn't cut it, congrats, you win, cause the dumbass your playing is castling in the corner and you're outscoring him every turn regardless of how much damage he does. But here in the real world, competitive armies are rocking heavy melee hammers and plenty of short range firepower.
The valiant is flat better in the current meta of armies. No one is rocking mass t8. If the meta shifts, and it could now that knights are out, the castellan could easily come out on top. But if the valiant is really just not cost effective ever, than neither will the Castellan be, and you are better taking smaller knights.
28 inch threat range is easily countered by being 28.1 inches away turn 1 (it's actually 30 inch base threat range). Which is pretty dang common to do anyways - smart players don't line up to get shot by 3d6 auto hit weapons. 600 point models that do nothing turn 1 are useless. It has to be Raven - which also increases your chances of using the harpoon and the melta guns. There are other tricks too - like the landstrider WL trait and bringing GMan along which are just good ideas to consider when bringing a valiant. With the combination of those 2 traits - you are looking at a 34-39 inch threat range AND 28-33 with your meltas and harpoon. Play you charge at a plus 3 too.
Few people are going to present a good target to your castellan turn one unless they can’t help it, which means they’re playing knights or other superheavies and the castellan is the better choice already. Every major tournament in the US rocks copious line of sight blocking terrain
Why are we pretending the Castellan is some kind of immobile gun platform? It can move 10" and shoot everything with no problems and advance and shoot if it's Raven. Just move over and get a better LOS on your targets if your opponent is hiding. Unless you're playing with a crazy amount of LOS block terrain, chances are moving 10 + d6" is gonna be enough to shoot at whatever you want most of the time.
So I've got a 1750 ITC style event coming up and i'm going to take knights, but I can't seem to settle on a list. Here's the options i'm thinking of, i'd value some input.
Valiant
Errant
warden
gallant
Valiant
crusader
gallant
gallant
Valiant
crusader
crusader
helverin or 3 assasins or celestine or a brigade of sisters or i might be able to borrow some guard for a brigade but i'm not sure if that's going to be a possibility.
My lord the castellan with cawls wrath and the house raven stratagem makes short work of tough things.
played against an steel legion mechanised army with lots of tank and a shadowsword and it was probably its best possible targets, killed the shadowsword in turn one and then 2-3 tanks a turn.
the hellverins didn't impress me much though sadly, but will try them again for sure.
I have to admit that so far my two warglaives haven’t particularly impressed me. If anything they are sometimes a liability. My Imperial soup opponent tied mine up with deathwatch squads and crusaders. Nothing much died, but it meant I couldn’t shoot his smash captains st all - as the locked infantry were closer.
Alexonian wrote: My lord the castellan with cawls wrath and the house raven stratagem makes short work of tough things.
played against an steel legion mechanised army with lots of tank and a shadowsword and it was probably its best possible targets, killed the shadowsword in turn one and then 2-3 tanks a turn
Our of curiosity, what did you shoot at the shadow sword? Volcano cannon and Decimator?
Alexonian wrote: My lord the castellan with cawls wrath and the house raven stratagem makes short work of tough things.
played against an steel legion mechanised army with lots of tank and a shadowsword and it was probably its best possible targets, killed the shadowsword in turn one and then 2-3 tanks a turn
Our of curiosity, what did you shoot at the shadow sword? Volcano cannon and Decimator?
yeah, also "wasted" the siegebreaker cannons as I wanted it dead, but the volcano cannon and cawls wrath did 34-35 wounds.
The Volcano Lance and Cawls are in theoryenough (assuming no -1 to hit from Nightshroud psychic power and the Raven companion stratagem) but you hardly want to leave it alive to fire again so I would agree with firing the Siegebreakers aswell.
Or having other units ready to finish it if need be.
Would Armigar spam be effective? You could have 10-12 Armigers on the board at 2k. Don't know how it could turn out but just seems like it could be a nuisance.
So I brought a Castellan, Crusader and the much maligned Valiant as my 1750 army to GW grand tournament and have tabled all three of my opponents on day one.
So yes, you have enough command points without guard, and yes the Valiant is awesome, and the Castellan is an absolute beast. The Crusader with Endless Fury is amazingly consistent at deleting troops
I am by no means a competitive player but I feel a lot of people are forgetting about something in the Valient vs Castellan thing: terrain. Aren't tournament battlefields meant to have a good deal of line of sight blocking terrrain? In that case, would that not be a point in the Valient's favor?
GreatGranpapy wrote: I am by no means a competitive player but I feel a lot of people are forgetting about something in the Valient vs Castellan thing: terrain. Aren't tournament battlefields meant to have a good deal of line of sight blocking terrrain? In that case, would that not be a point in the Valient's favor?
Both are the same size. Both can move where they want. Castellans don't have to hang back.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Godeskian wrote: So I brought a Castellan, Crusader and the much maligned Valiant as my 1750 army to GW grand tournament and have tabled all three of my opponents on day one.
So yes, you have enough command points without guard, and yes the Valiant is awesome, and the Castellan is an absolute beast. The Crusader with Endless Fury is amazingly consistent at deleting troops
Especially in a big tournament a lot will hang on getting lucky in pairings to avoid bad matchups. At some point you run into someone that just destroys Knights for breakfast.
GreatGranpapy wrote: I am by no means a competitive player but I feel a lot of people are forgetting about something in the Valient vs Castellan thing: terrain. Aren't tournament battlefields meant to have a good deal of line of sight blocking terrrain? In that case, would that not be a point in the Valient's favor?
Unless your tournament pack goes for first floor LoS blocking my experience has been that it highly variable
For those with more experience running dominus class knights, are you finding the 2x shield breakers are enough or are your knights still alive turn 3/4 and you wish you had more over the seigebreakers?
UMGuy wrote: For those with more experience running dominus class knights, are you finding the 2x shield breakers are enough or are your knights still alive turn 3/4 and you wish you had more over the seigebreakers?
I run a Raven Castellan and am seriously considering upping to 4 missiles. Not sure what I can do with the 10 or so spare points, but with the Raven strat I tend to delete 1 character per turn.
UMGuy wrote: For those with more experience running dominus class knights, are you finding the 2x shield breakers are enough or are your knights still alive turn 3/4 and you wish you had more over the seigebreakers?
I run a Raven Castellan and am seriously considering upping to 4 missiles. Not sure what I can do with the 10 or so spare points, but with the Raven strat I tend to delete 1 character per turn.
Really? I've had no luck with the strat, so I've stopped trying. Either I miss, I fail to wound, or I don't do enough wounds and I've spent a bunch of command points for nothing. Compared to spending those command points on sat order of companions and guaranteeing extra kills f ft om the Castellan.
Plus the Siege breaker cannons are workhorses, always adding consistent extra damage over the course of a game. In fact I tend to run my Valiant with two of them too.
GreatGranpapy wrote: I am by no means a competitive player but I feel a lot of people are forgetting about something in the Valient vs Castellan thing: terrain. Aren't tournament battlefields meant to have a good deal of line of sight blocking terrrain? In that case, would that not be a point in the Valient's favor?
Both are the same size. Both can move where they want. Castellans don't have to hang back.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Godeskian wrote: So I brought a Castellan, Crusader and the much maligned Valiant as my 1750 army to GW grand tournament and have tabled all three of my opponents on day one.
So yes, you have enough command points without guard, and yes the Valiant is awesome, and the Castellan is an absolute beast. The Crusader with Endless Fury is amazingly consistent at deleting troops
Especially in a big tournament a lot will hang on getting lucky in pairings to avoid bad matchups. At some point you run into someone that just destroys Knights for breakfast.
I’m there too, and having a much less good experience. Currently 1 win and 2 losses.
I beat up some Tau in game 1. Honestly I was pretty unlucky but I still almost tabled him, leaving just a firesight marksman alive by turn 7. Killing riptides and ghostkeels was tough but they did die eventually, even though my Castellan whiffed spectacularly throughout.
I should have won my second game against DE, and would probably do so again in future. Trouble was the mission: Ascension. He had 9 Talons and 3 ravagers. I should have focussed everything on the taloses but didn’t, and suffered as a result. My Armigers actually held up pretty well here.
I don’t know what I could have done in game 3. 150-odd cultists with Abaddon making them fearless and assorted daemon princes, Ahriman and a Slaanesh sorcerer handing out FNP. Just couldn’t kill them fast enough, especially once a unit trapped my armigers so they couldn’t be attacked at all. It takes a long time to kill 40 guys with FNP!
Army is Castellan, Crusader with TC and ironstorm rocket pod, Gallant and two armigers.
Overall I kind of think the armigers are a liability, because of how they let your opponent swarm over you. If they met something like plaguebearers they’d have no chance whatsoever.
It seems like the meta has changed. I’m seeing loads of invulnerable saves on lots of models, without tons of wounds. Things like Taloses and Ghostkeels with shield generators are really diffficult to get rid of when you have big penalties to hit. My first opponent had Longstrike and 3 other hammerheads, but those were the only good targets for my Castellan all day - and it rolled awfully against them so didn’t do all that much.
The crusader has been solid. A battlecannon definitely would have been better than the TC, by a long way, because every damn thing has an invulnerable save anyway.
The Gallant has been kind of a joke too to be honest. He can kick away at things like Taloses and cultists, but nothing really happens, and then he falls over to mortal wound spam and stuff. Ultimately this guy would be useful against a pure shooting army, but even then you’d be better off with a gun. They’d probably have a screen, and taking a Gallant means having to shoot your way through it when otherwise you wouldn’t have to bother.
Overall it’s been interesting, but tough. Learning a lot about my own army and others. It’s weird how fast the meta can shift around. Knights are in a weird place, because they are so different to what everyone else is taking - and they aren’t very good at dealing with the hordes that everyone else is bringing. So they end up being bad at dealing with the enemy - and the enemy are also bad at dealing with the knights because they took anti-horde stuff. You get match-ups where you auto-win or lose. That’s kind of bad, honestly. It’s not how anyone wants to play.
Mandragola wrote: Overall it’s been interesting, but tough. Learning a lot about my own army and others. It’s weird how fast the meta can shift around. Knights are in a weird place, because they are so different to what everyone else is taking - and they aren’t very good at dealing with the hordes that everyone else is bringing. So they end up being bad at dealing with the enemy - and the enemy are also bad at dealing with the knights because they took anti-horde stuff. You get match-ups where you auto-win or lose. That’s kind of bad, honestly. It’s not how anyone wants to play.
The meta seems to be degenerating into rock-paper-scissors. 40K has always had an element of this but the flexible detachments in 8th edition seem to have exacerbated it. No one bring balanced lists because it just means every gun in your opponent's army has a viable target. Every list seems to depend on spamming something whether it is armour, infantry or negative to-hit modifiers.
Not sure what the solution is, even shifting back to the old CAD would not necessarily help since the combo of cheap troops and powerful HQs seem to be where its at currently.
The game has always been about how much anti infantry or anti tank you need.
Knights themselves are a HUGE binary army. Either the enemy can beat 3 Knight and you lose or they can't and you win.
There is not a lot of room between the two.
So every game you play looks like a rock-paper-scissors game.
Avenger Gatling Cannons are actually a good all-rounder. Endless Fury is particularly good. So I think that maximising the number of these you have is a good way to make the army less binary. You could take up to four knights with them at 1750, and honestly I think that might be a decent idea.
The revised list I’m low looking at features something like my Castellan, A Crusader and a Warden, plus a battalion of either IG or Admech. The warden is there to take a fist in case there are characters who need death gripping - which I think there often will be. A stormspear pod on the roof is almost equivalent to a TC anyway. I think I’ll drop the Armigers and the Gallant though.
Someone suggested spamming Armigers, which is interesting. There might come a tipping point where you have enough of them that they can start to hack their way through hordes. Maybe you could run a good Krast army featuring tons of armigers. But putting two of them into my army really hasn’t worked at all - at least so far.
Mandragola wrote: Avenger Gatling Cannons are actually a good all-rounder. Endless Fury is particularly good. So I think that maximising the number of these you have is a good way to make the army less binary. You could take up to four knights with them at 1750, and honestly I think that might be a decent idea.
I ran the numbers of an AGC vs a RFBC. The RFBC is slightly better vs T7 targets but only slightly. Against all other targets, the AGC is the superior weapon. When you consider the RFBC costs more points, you have to wonder if the advantage or range is worth it. If Knights need T8, they have feet and stormspear pods. I do think the Warden has decent claim to be the best all-rounder Questoris.
Mandragola wrote: Avenger Gatling Cannons are actually a good all-rounder. Endless Fury is particularly good. So I think that maximising the number of these you have is a good way to make the army less binary. You could take up to four knights with them at 1750, and honestly I think that might be a decent idea.
I ran the numbers of an AGC vs a RFBC. The RFBC is slightly better vs T7 targets but only slightly. Against all other targets, the AGC is the superior weapon. When you consider the RFBC costs more points, you have to wonder if the advantage or range is worth it. If Knights need T8, they have feet and stormspear pods. I do think the Warden has decent claim to be the best all-rounder Questoris.
This is one of the ways that Renegade Knights get a good option the loyalists don't. Dual avenger gatling cannon knight. You get 2 heavy flamers for your trouble too! I intend to build one such knight to support my Iron Warriors.
So I got two more wins today, and qualified by the skin of my teeth. Phew!!
Today I played against a Tau army and a soup list of IG and BA battalions plus a Gallant. I went first and I had pretty decent luck throughout both games, so I tabled both opponents. Only lost my armigers against the Tau and the Gallant against the IG.
Playing pure knights is odd. They are extremely binary. They kill an awful lot of things but are dreadful in objective games. This leads to games that are lost or won by massive margins.
That said, they are decent overall. My crusader has been rock solid for me all weekend. You can just point that avenger cannon at anything you want to, and it’ll be hurt. I’ve alternated between making it be Endless Fury for the extra shots and giving him the Blessed by the Sacristans warlord trait to make it do mortal wounds. Both are great, so the obvious thing is to take two avengers so that you can have both.
The Castellan was ok, overall. It does have good guns. I’m not sure whether it’s better to have two turrets or one, so you can keep firing missiles. Both are pretty decent. It would have been far, far better as house Raven - though it would have eaten a lot of CPs.
It’s probably worth having a thunderstrike gauntlet somewhere, so that you can death grip things. So I think that my set up in future is going to be a Castellan, Crusader and Warden, plus a battalion of something or other.
There are good arguments for both admech and IG battalions. It would actually be quite handy having a couple of enginseers to put wounds back on knights, though I’d be sorry to increase my drop count. Of course admech have a transport now, with the termite, and you could potentially put 2x5 vanguard and both enginseers in it to keep the drop count nice and low.
Guard have good options too though. I’m tempted by the idea of a blob of 40 conscripts, backed up by the relic bolt pistol that stops them from running off and a psyker to improve their saves. I’ll do some adding up and see what I can afford.
Unlike Mandragola, I had a day marred by calamity, having to concede my fourth game halfway through and miss my fifth game due to a plumbing emergency.
As a result of two forfeits, I missed out on a top 30 spot by five positions, which amounted to a single tournament point.
Congrats to him though. I'll be rooting for you at the finals
Mandragola wrote: Avenger Gatling Cannons are actually a good all-rounder. Endless Fury is particularly good. So I think that maximising the number of these you have is a good way to make the army less binary. You could take up to four knights with them at 1750, and honestly I think that might be a decent idea.
I ran the numbers of an AGC vs a RFBC. The RFBC is slightly better vs T7 targets but only slightly. Against all other targets, the AGC is the superior weapon. When you consider the RFBC costs more points, you have to wonder if the advantage or range is worth it. If Knights need T8, they have feet and stormspear pods. I do think the Warden has decent claim to be the best all-rounder Questoris.
This is one of the ways that Renegade Knights get a good option the loyalists don't. Dual avenger gatling cannon knight. You get 2 heavy flamers for your trouble too! I intend to build one such knight to support my Iron Warriors.
2 HFlamers, that you also pay for. Which make up the pounts difference.
The cost of a RFBC is as high as it is because set up at extreme range from any target and moving normally towards them at knight speed with them movong towards you at infantry speed or gunline standing still; will have that RFBC firing 2-3x before the AGC will make it into range at all, and the Heavy Flamer will still be out of range for a full battle round.
At least; that is the Bad-at-math game designer's reason; they also have never played a game before(why anything non-indirect ever has a range greater than 48-54"). This makes sense in the most extreme situations.
Mandragola wrote: Avenger Gatling Cannons are actually a good all-rounder. Endless Fury is particularly good. So I think that maximising the number of these you have is a good way to make the army less binary. You could take up to four knights with them at 1750, and honestly I think that might be a decent idea.
I ran the numbers of an AGC vs a RFBC. The RFBC is slightly better vs T7 targets but only slightly. Against all other targets, the AGC is the superior weapon. When you consider the RFBC costs more points, you have to wonder if the advantage or range is worth it. If Knights need T8, they have feet and stormspear pods. I do think the Warden has decent claim to be the best all-rounder Questoris.
This is one of the ways that Renegade Knights get a good option the loyalists don't. Dual avenger gatling cannon knight. You get 2 heavy flamers for your trouble too! I intend to build one such knight to support my Iron Warriors.
2 HFlamers, that you also pay for. Which make up the pounts difference.
The cost of a RFBC is as high as it is because set up at extreme range from any target and moving normally towards them at knight speed with them movong towards you at infantry speed or gunline standing still; will have that RFBC firing 2-3x before the AGC will make it into range at all, and the Heavy Flamer will still be out of range for a full battle round.
At least; that is the Bad-at-math game designer's reason; they also have never played a game before(why anything non-indirect ever has a range greater than 48-54"). This makes sense in the most extreme situations.
The heavy flamer makes up some of the difference between the avenger and the RFBC, but not all. It’s 92 points vs 104. GW seriously over-values almost all flamer weapons. To be fair, a heavy stubber can easily get more kills across a game than a heavy flamer, because it’ll fire every turn. So here we see GW being bad at maths twice, with an effect that nearly evens out overall.
I’ve been thinking more about how my various units performed over the weekend. Here’s something of a model by model review.
The Castellan is awesome… sometimes. Line up tanks against him and he’ll batter them, at ranges that make him extremely hard for them to kill – especially with the obligatory 4++ warlord trait. This guy only died once all weekend and that was my fault for underestimating Taloses. High point was one-shotting an Y’vahra. Low point was facing ~150 fearless cultists. I had pretty bad luck with this guy’s dice (one wounding hit with its first 12 melta gun shots, for example!) but even so it handed out great damage in some games.
I’m actually starting to think that the Castellan might not be all that good. He does one thing very well – blow up tanks – but you can kill tanks really well already by rushing them with Questoris knights. Against hordes he feels extremely weak, and he can also be stymied by armies with lots of invulnerable saves - as seen in the game against DE. He might be better at 2k.
My crusader was the sleeper hit of my list. He just kept on handing out damage all the way through every game. Mainly this was because of his avenger gatling gun, which I’ve talked about already, but he could pitch in and stomp on Tau when needed too. The ironstorm missile pod was very useful too. I don’t think it used a single CP over 5 games, other than the ones I paid to give it a relic gun.
The Gallant was bad. In fairness to it, it did pretty well in games against shooty armies, where it zerged in and smashed things up. That better WS meant that it could reliably smash up a tank even on its bottom health bracket. But on the other hand it was awful in games where my opponent had scary cc stuff – and that’s a lot of the time! Ultimately a Warden could charge into a Leman Russ with roughly the same effect (the russ probably dies and certainly doesn’t shoot). I won’t take one of these again.
The armigers were a weird one. They give you the ability to threaten a lot more of the board, which is very useful, and they can cut up hordes relatively well. I think an army list with a lot of them (say 6+) could work pretty well. But they weren’t great in my list, except against shooting armies. On the whole, I think my points would have been better spent on more Questoris knights, which would have been better all-rounders. They are decent at fighting hordes in melee, but the fact they get trapped is a significant downside.
The Armigers had several high points, including getting into melee with Tau on turn 1 of a game and killing a charging enemy Gallant before it got to strike, with possibly my best ever use of an interrupt stratagem. They fought well against the Taloses too. Low point was when one of them got surrounded by fearless cultists, allowing a bunch of chaos characters to move up behind in complete safety.
So with armigers I think it’s a bit all or nothing. If you had a lot of them they’d terrorise shooty armies and possibly hand out enough chops to go through hordes – eventually.
Overall my army was extremely dangerous. I killed 7344 points worth of stuff in 5 games at 1750. That's 84% of everything I faced. I didn't play that well, having had only two practice games and no time to refine my list. After that experience I could produce a nastier army and be pretty confident of doing significantly better. I think I'd take four questoris knights, all with avengers at 1750 from now on. They just work.
When you say armiger do you mean warglaive or helverin?
I can see a warglaive having the issues you describe, but wouldn't a helverin have the speed and range to kite while having a weapon that is got enough range to threaten most of the board.
Mandragola wrote: Really sorry you went out like that, from such a strong position yesterday. Hope the plumbing situation is fixed!
It is, thank you.
I'd also like to add to your unit review. I took the Crusader with a Stormspear pod because I expected to see much, much more armour, but even with that being a bit of a damp squib, the Avenger and RFBC did journeyman work throughout the tournament. It never failed to kill loads of stuff, blowing enemies off key objectives, and if there was no one specific thing it had to kill, it was still killing things every single turn. I was far more impressed than I was expecting to be.
Like you I feel like the Castellan was good, but not great due to having no juicy targets. In four games I saw exactlty three vehicles. A Rhino, a Razorback and a Leviathan, and it blew each of them off the board in one round of shooting (obviously in seperate games). Sure,t he Volcano cannon killed a bunch of other stuff, but I ended up using it to finish off units, rather than as anti-vehicle. On the other hand Cawl's Wrath and the twin Siegebreakers just hammered squad after squad after squad.
And finally, the Valiant. hoo boy. Here's the problem, when the Valiant was on fire, it was an absolute wrecking ball. Despite the handwringing of online commentators, I had something worthwhile to shoot at every single turn. The 28 inch basic threat range is plenty, and when you add in the Raven move, you should never be without targets for at least the Siegebreakers (i took two) and the Conflagration cannon. However, and it pains me to say this, because nothing gives me greater joy than shouting 'MAN THE HARPOONS!!!' in a match, but the problem with the Valiant is that it is wildly inconsistent. 3D6 hits sounds great on paper, and probably does average out at about 10-11 hits, but when the dice aren't hot, and you spend several turns rolling 5 or 6 hits, as I did, it feels like a very expensive waste of points. Moreover, while its range is fine, it does have to move towards the enemy, and it just isn't good in CC against anything that is designed to be good in CC.
So I'm hoping to go to one of the other heats if they release any return tickets later, and I'd probably trade the Valiant for a dedicated close combat knight like the Lancer, or a hybrid like the Atropos. And it genuinely pains me, but I need that consistency in my killing power, the variance of the Valiant is more than i can deal with.
The Castellan is awesome… sometimes. Line up tanks against him and he’ll batter them, at ranges that make him extremely hard for them to kill – especially with the obligatory 4++ warlord trait.
Interesting, I tossed that on the Valiant every single time, because I was using it as a massive distraction carnifex that actually has to be killed, and as a result my Castellan didn't even get shot at in my first game, and took scratch damage in two and three. I'm fairly sure he was about to get smashed to paste in my game against five captain Smashfuckers and Mephiston, but as both the Valiant and Crusader were dead at that point, it was his only target left.
Ice_can wrote: When you say armiger do you mean warglaive or helverin?
I can see a warglaive having the issues you describe, but wouldn't a helverin have the speed and range to kite while having a weapon that is got enough range to threaten most of the board.
I used warglaives. Actually they have a decent range of 30", so they don't have to go close to be effective. But kiting isn't a thing - people teleport around the place far too much for that to be reliable. Or they fill up the board with cultists and leave you nowhere to run. Or they are Ynnari shining spears, or indeed a knight with landstrider and full tilt.
Mandragola wrote: Really sorry you went out like that, from such a strong position yesterday. Hope the plumbing situation is fixed!
It is, thank you.
I'd also like to add to your unit review. I took the Crusader with a Stormspear pod because I expected to see much, much more armour, but even with that being a bit of a damp squib, the Avenger and RFBC did journeyman work throughout the tournament. It never failed to kill loads of stuff, blowing enemies off key objectives, and if there was no one specific thing it had to kill, it was still killing things every single turn. I was far more impressed than I was expecting to be.
Like you I feel like the Castellan was good, but not great due to having no juicy targets. In four games I saw exactlty three vehicles. A Rhino, a Razorback and a Leviathan, and it blew each of them off the board in one round of shooting (obviously in seperate games). Sure,t he Volcano cannon killed a bunch of other stuff, but I ended up using it to finish off units, rather than as anti-vehicle. On the other hand Cawl's Wrath and the twin Siegebreakers just hammered squad after squad after squad.
And finally, the Valiant. hoo boy. Here's the problem, when the Valiant was on fire, it was an absolute wrecking ball. Despite the handwringing of online commentators, I had something worthwhile to shoot at every single turn. The 28 inch basic threat range is plenty, and when you add in the Raven move, you should never be without targets for at least the Siegebreakers (i took two) and the Conflagration cannon. However, and it pains me to say this, because nothing gives me greater joy than shouting 'MAN THE HARPOONS!!!' in a match, but the problem with the Valiant is that it is wildly inconsistent. 3D6 hits sounds great on paper, and probably does average out at about 10-11 hits, but when the dice aren't hot, and you spend several turns rolling 5 or 6 hits, as I did, it feels like a very expensive waste of points. Moreover, while its range is fine, it does have to move towards the enemy, and it just isn't good in CC against anything that is designed to be good in CC.
So I'm hoping to go to one of the other heats if they release any return tickets later, and I'd probably trade the Valiant for a dedicated close combat knight like the Lancer, or a hybrid like the Atropos. And it genuinely pains me, but I need that consistency in my killing power, the variance of the Valiant is more than i can deal with.
The Castellan is awesome… sometimes. Line up tanks against him and he’ll batter them, at ranges that make him extremely hard for them to kill – especially with the obligatory 4++ warlord trait.
Interesting, I tossed that on the Valiant every single time, because I was using it as a massive distraction carnifex that actually has to be killed, and as a result my Castellan didn't even get shot at in my first game, and took scratch damage in two and three. I'm fairly sure he was about to get smashed to paste in my game against five captain Smashfuckers and Mephiston, but as both the Valiant and Crusader were dead at that point, it was his only target left.
I'm glad it worked for you
Thanks. I felt pretty lucky to scrape through.
On the warlord trait, I think the Castellan benefits more from the 4++. It spends more time at range, where it gets shot at by stuff like lascannons. The Valiant goes up close, where it gets shot at by everyhing, and also punched. I think the 2+ armour save would benefit it more, especially in close combat.
I'm now looking at lists featuring 3-4 Avenger Gatling Cannons. One option is to have a couple of crusaders with RFBC and ironstorm, a Warden with the fist and a couple of warglaives. Another is to have two crusaders and two wardens. Not sure which would work best.
Ice_can wrote: When you say armiger do you mean warglaive or helverin?
I can see a warglaive having the issues you describe, but wouldn't a helverin have the speed and range to kite while having a weapon that is got enough range to threaten most of the board.
I used warglaives. Actually they have a decent range of 30", so they don't have to go close to be effective. But kiting isn't a thing - people teleport around the place far too much for that to be reliable. Or they fill up the board with cultists and leave you nowhere to run. Or they are Ynnari shining spears, or indeed a knight with landstrider and full tilt.
Mandragola wrote: Really sorry you went out like that, from such a strong position yesterday. Hope the plumbing situation is fixed!
It is, thank you.
I'd also like to add to your unit review. I took the Crusader with a Stormspear pod because I expected to see much, much more armour, but even with that being a bit of a damp squib, the Avenger and RFBC did journeyman work throughout the tournament. It never failed to kill loads of stuff, blowing enemies off key objectives, and if there was no one specific thing it had to kill, it was still killing things every single turn. I was far more impressed than I was expecting to be.
Like you I feel like the Castellan was good, but not great due to having no juicy targets. In four games I saw exactlty three vehicles. A Rhino, a Razorback and a Leviathan, and it blew each of them off the board in one round of shooting (obviously in seperate games). Sure,t he Volcano cannon killed a bunch of other stuff, but I ended up using it to finish off units, rather than as anti-vehicle. On the other hand Cawl's Wrath and the twin Siegebreakers just hammered squad after squad after squad.
And finally, the Valiant. hoo boy. Here's the problem, when the Valiant was on fire, it was an absolute wrecking ball. Despite the handwringing of online commentators, I had something worthwhile to shoot at every single turn. The 28 inch basic threat range is plenty, and when you add in the Raven move, you should never be without targets for at least the Siegebreakers (i took two) and the Conflagration cannon. However, and it pains me to say this, because nothing gives me greater joy than shouting 'MAN THE HARPOONS!!!' in a match, but the problem with the Valiant is that it is wildly inconsistent. 3D6 hits sounds great on paper, and probably does average out at about 10-11 hits, but when the dice aren't hot, and you spend several turns rolling 5 or 6 hits, as I did, it feels like a very expensive waste of points. Moreover, while its range is fine, it does have to move towards the enemy, and it just isn't good in CC against anything that is designed to be good in CC.
So I'm hoping to go to one of the other heats if they release any return tickets later, and I'd probably trade the Valiant for a dedicated close combat knight like the Lancer, or a hybrid like the Atropos. And it genuinely pains me, but I need that consistency in my killing power, the variance of the Valiant is more than i can deal with.
The Castellan is awesome… sometimes. Line up tanks against him and he’ll batter them, at ranges that make him extremely hard for them to kill – especially with the obligatory 4++ warlord trait.
Interesting, I tossed that on the Valiant every single time, because I was using it as a massive distraction carnifex that actually has to be killed, and as a result my Castellan didn't even get shot at in my first game, and took scratch damage in two and three. I'm fairly sure he was about to get smashed to paste in my game against five captain Smashfuckers and Mephiston, but as both the Valiant and Crusader were dead at that point, it was his only target left.
I'm glad it worked for you
Thanks. I felt pretty lucky to scrape through.
On the warlord trait, I think the Castellan benefits more from the 4++. It spends more time at range, where it gets shot at by stuff like lascannons. The Valiant goes up close, where it gets shot at by everyhing, and also punched. I think the 2+ armour save would benefit it more, especially in close combat.
I'm now looking at lists featuring 3-4 Avenger Gatling Cannons. One option is to have a couple of crusaders with RFBC and ironstorm, a Warden with the fist and a couple of warglaives. Another is to have two crusaders and two wardens. Not sure which would work best.
So are you advocating no Dominus class and multiple Crusaders instead? Just trying to decide if I should buy the Castellan to go with my Gallant and Crusader.
@godeskian
I don't have an opinion on the Castellan yet as i haven't had it on the table yet. trying him out on tuesday night along side a couple of Helverins and a bunch of Sisters with all the dakka.
The Valiant on the other hand, Yes it has it's issues, but he's been the glue that holds my 2k pure knights list together. Valiant, Gallant and 2 Crusaders as Hawkshroud. The Gallant screening for the Valiant, with the crusaders flanking tucked in close. if anything wants to charge I use the hawkshroud overwatch strat and they have to deal with eating the valiant's overwatch. (Which now has a reputation at my club after a warptimed Mortarian committed suicide by turn 1 charged my Knight Deathstar (Knightstar?) and died before the valiant had fully resolved it's overwatch). The end game for the Valiant is always to get in amongst the biggest cluster of enemy units for a high value noble sacrifice, even though i'll typically Warlord the valiant for the pregame CP economy.
@themostwize
Yes, I use Knights and Sisters. I've not added it up but combined i think i could put an 8k army on the table.
In all honesty there are better options. You have to bare in mind that sisters were a good tier index army, but they haven't moved in power while every codex has raised the power bar. Sisters play need allies to work well due to limited selection of units/wargear and the way Act of Faith scales with army size, or more specifically, does not scale with army size. It's not the worst combination in the world but it's certainly not the best. Lets put it this way, I use sisters to dilute the power of pure Knights specifically for friendly games because my local meta hasn't adjusted yet.
Also @themostwize
Well godeskian is advocating for a £185 forgeworld model and mandragola is having an anti-horde overcompensation moment which is natural if you run a castellan and see 150 models getting set up across the table from you.
in all honesty it depends what type of list you want to build. Just be aware that if you want to run a castellan over almost every other option you sacrifice horde killing ability and have to find another way to compensate either with anti horde knights or anti horde allies. You'll probably want it to be mech so you you can pick up the relic plasma (not doing that is silly). so admech are actually a good fit as allies, the repair is ok but ideal you want it for the two stand out canticle options reroll 1s to hit and +1 cover save which you can feed to one mech knight through an admech strat. In all honesty though even if it's not admech any anti horde ally or anti horde focused knight combination would do. Personally i've been enjoying the alternative set up of the valiant for and 2 crusaders for avenger gattling cannons for my anti horde and my anti tank shooting coming from 2 thermal cannons. That is against my local meta though, yours might be totally different.
Yes I'm a rule of cool player of I like the way it looks I'll play it. That's where sisters are for me. Especially with the third party models.
It's why I play GK as my main lol.
Yea I was toying with running a Castellan, Crusader and Warden for the extra anti horde. The guys I play with regularly usually have quite a few vehicles or high T models.
The guard players has a large combo of both tanks and troops so the Crusader is certainly going to have to deal with them. That's why I was thinking another warden to help clear infantry with the Castellan focusing on the russes and hellhounds.
Couple of questions that I don’t see specific answers to in the Codex-
1. Can Armiger Knights also be Freeblades? I know the larger Knights can but the wording in the Codex regarding the Armigers isn’t so clear.
2. I’ve looked in the FAQ and Codex, no mention of Knights having any kind of ObSec, is this the case?
Just for kicks and giggles I tried a Freeblade Gallant this weekend with the +1A trait and 2+ Save Relic, then gave it the Legendary Hero quality (re-roll a single roll of any kind each battle round), and chose 2 Burdens: numbers 1 and 5, which only once came into play since I have to roll a 10 or more for the Burdens to take effect.
Playing the Gallant like this was great, 6 base attacks with a re-roll for misses or that one save you have to make was really worth going Freeblade.
Sharing my game from the weekend. 2k against an optimized anti-knights eldar soup. I took house Raven with a castellan, errant, warden, 2 warglaives and a basic skitarii battalion. His list was all eldar flavors but focused in the haywire harlequin jetbikes. Mission rolled for was kill points so super hard mode against knights.
Castellan did good work. Wasn't the best matchup versus all the invuls but was one of my few things left alive. In fact I did more damage to myself overcharging cawls wrath than the enemy (all the damn minuses to hit). Great array of weapons and damage potential but it is damn swingy with so many variable rolls. I was very appreciative of the shieldbreaker missiles as well as they punked a shadowseer in one go with the strategem and finished off the solitaire late game.
The 2 warglaives were my MVPs. They are fast enough to keep up with even eldar and really help positioning and force better matchups for the big knights. They had some good kills but their best use was unavoidable beatsticks.
The errant and warden we're fine, not much to say. My warden had the gauntlet relic but it never got used because it got nuked in one turn by all the haywire shooting.
I was surprised in general that the most important thing for knights was really the movement phase. You have to plan a turn or two ahead with movement as you have so few models being out of position is not an option. I won the game easily in points but I'm not sure I could say that in a more objective focused game.
Also, side note, if you face mortal wounds spam like the haywire eldar or smite don't forget knights have a strategem that can save on a 5+ like I did.
davidgr33n wrote: Couple of questions that I don’t see specific answers to in the Codex-
1. Can Armiger Knights also be Freeblades? I know the larger Knights can but the wording in the Codex regarding the Armigers isn’t so clear.
2. I’ve looked in the FAQ and Codex, no mention of Knights having any kind of ObSec, is this the case?
Just for kicks and giggles I tried a Freeblade Gallant this weekend with the +1A trait and 2+ Save Relic, then gave it the Legendary Hero quality (re-roll a single roll of any kind each battle round), and chose 2 Burdens: numbers 1 and 5, which only once came into play since I have to roll a 10 or more for the Burdens to take effect.
Playing the Gallant like this was great, 6 base attacks with a re-roll for misses or that one save you have to make was really worth going Freeblade.
1) yes, a datasheet of armigers can be freeblades complete with 1 getting Q&B(Q&B are also independent of SHD requirements, and can be applied to a SHAD)
2) no, knights do not ever get obsec.
3) Should have rolled for Burdens; you can both Choose 1, and roll for 1 in Q&B; also you would have suffered burdens on a roll of 9+ as you subtract 1 if you have #1.
Yes, I thought about just rolling for one Burden, I just didn’t want it to be one that really would hurt my attacking ability, like being forced to move closer to the nearest enemy.
With regards to failing the Burden roll on a 9+, the Gallant is Ld9, and you have to roll equal to or greater than the Ld to fail, if I roll a 9 then it becomes an 8 which I pass. So I have to roll a 10 for it to become a 9.
Here is the wording from the Codex:
If the result is less than that Freeblade’s Leadership characteristic, their Burdens do not apply that turn. If the result equals or exceeds their Leadership characteristic, then their Burdens apply until the start of your next turn.
This is the wording of how that Burden affects the dice roll:
If a Freeblade from your army has any Burdens, roll 2D6 for them at the start of each of your turns, subtracting 1 from the result if the Freeblade has the Exiled in Shame Burden.
Drider wrote: Also @themostwize
Well godeskian is advocating for a £185 forgeworld model and mandragola is having an anti-horde overcompensation moment which is natural if you run a castellan and see 150 models getting set up across the table from you.
in all honesty it depends what type of list you want to build. Just be aware that if you want to run a castellan over almost every other option you sacrifice horde killing ability and have to find another way to compensate either with anti horde knights or anti horde allies. You'll probably want it to be mech so you you can pick up the relic plasma (not doing that is silly). so admech are actually a good fit as allies, the repair is ok but ideal you want it for the two stand out canticle options reroll 1s to hit and +1 cover save which you can feed to one mech knight through an admech strat. In all honesty though even if it's not admech any anti horde ally or anti horde focused knight combination would do. Personally i've been enjoying the alternative set up of the valiant for and 2 crusaders for avenger gattling cannons for my anti horde and my anti tank shooting coming from 2 thermal cannons. That is against my local meta though, yours might be totally different.
I'm not sure itr's an overcompensation moment
My experience this weekend was hugely binary. When I saw tanks I won. The Castellan was instrumental in that (when it didn't roll terribly - which it did often) but I was smashing them anyway by simply walking knights forward and engaging them in melee.
But on the other hand against hordes it's 600 points of nothing much. The 150 cultists I faced isn't even a particularly large horde, or particularly tough. The Ork and GSC codexes will be out sooner or later, and knights will have to be able to deal with them.
So my suggestion in getting rid of the Castellan and prioritising Wardens and Crusaders is about making the game less binary. It would probably be less good against the shooty lists, but it would be better against the hordes. I'd much prefer it that way. My games agaisnt Tau weren't much fun (especially for my opponents) because they were so completely one-sided, and this is also a problem. The game should be fun, which is only really possible when both players have a chance of winning every game. And that's also the only way you can win a tournament with any army. You can't take a rock/paper/scissors list, because you will always meet something you can't handle.
At 2k I think the Castellan is a compelling option. You can afford it and three other proper knights. At 1750 that isn't really possible. So for example these might be good lists:
1750:
Crusader with RFBC and ironstorm pod
Crusader with RFBC and ironstorm pod
Warden with Thunderstrike Gauntlet
2 Armiger Warglaives with Stubbers.
2000:
Castellan with 4 missiles and 1 turret
Crusader with RFBC and ironstorm pod
Crusader with TC and ironstorm pod
Warden with Thunderstrike Gauntlet and ironstorm pod.
So the point of this approach is to send as many shots as possible down range. I think at least one thunderstrike gauntlet is required for tackling characters, and it's also good to have stuff to go forwards fast, which is why I've got the armigers in the 1750 list.
Also @themostwize
Well godeskian is advocating for a £185 forgeworld model
Yes, I suppose I am. Thing is, I’m not convinced Knights have a counter to a dedicated CC list like the Mephiston, five smashfuckers and screen list I played against. The hybrids like the Warden, Errant and Paladin will die as quickly as the Crusader did, the Gallant might kill something if he charges but again If he gets charged which is likely, then he’ll die, Armour of Sainted Iron and Sanctuary helped, but not enough. Shooting didn’t work, as between the crusaders with storm shields, the deathwatch with storm shields and the actual characters themselves with stormshields, he was able to tank a phenomenal amount of shots, which leaves me with the only thing I could think of as a counter, a dedicated CC Knight that has an invulnerable save in close combat, and the only two that have that as far as I know are the Atropos and the Lancer.
If you have a better alternative within the Knights, I’d love to hear it, and I mean that most sincerely. I’m looking for solutions to the problem of a hardcore, dedicated CC element which is well protected until it’s ready to strike.
1) Sanctuary, armour of the sacred ion, styrix - gives you three knights all enhanced cc defence
2) use your batteries to screen your knights. My knights are accompanied by 60 guardsmen so against a pure CC list I can screen my knights or atleast channel the enemy into my CC knight
Smash Captains counters knights perfectly. And it will probably get worse when the new Space Wolves codex arrives and Wulfen get's updated. Thunder hammers and Storm shields and a million attacks.
I would guess looking forward pure Knights will only have a place as a "fun" but binary gatekeeper list i.e. win big or lose big.
Souped Knights is the competitive option but we are talking 1 Dominus knights and maybe 2 armigers at most.
1) Sanctuary, armour of the sacred ion, styrix - gives you three knights all enhanced cc defence
I used both sanctuary and armour of sainted ion. It helped but not enough, and since Styrix is a forgeworld knight as well, I'm not sure how that's a different solution to than taking a Lancer or Atropos
2) use your batteries to screen your knights. My knights are accompanied by 60 guardsmen so against a pure CC list I can screen my knights or atleast channel the enemy into my CC knight
Don't have a battery to screen with in the first place, and in the second with three squads of Deathwatch and three squads of guardsmen himself, he simply could have shot a chaff unit to pieces. Ten guardsmen are not that hard to remove
Automatically Appended Next Post:
X078 wrote: Smash Captains counters knights perfectly. And it will probably get worse when the new Space Wolves codex arrives and Wulfen get's updated. Thunder hammers and Storm shields and a million attacks.
I would guess looking forward pure Knights will only have a place as a "fun" but binary gatekeeper list i.e. win big or lose big.
Souped Knights is the competitive option but we are talking 1 Dominus knights and maybe 2 armigers at most.
Yeah, sadly I feel like this was as close to perfect timing for an all knights list. The codex was new, the meta still favoured anti infantry, and most people hadn't yet played against knights.
I don't expect any of that to be true three months from now, even assuming I manage to aquire a ticket for the remaining heats
My plan for having any sort of a chance against smash captains is not to be in close combat with them, ever if possible. Even if you do kill them they hit you back! Overwatch isn’t a thing. One of them will have the relic jump pack that prevents it, and they’ve got too many wounds to reliably die to a single missile.
And of course smash captains are only one example of this kind of thing (albeit arguably the worst one). Lots of armies exist with mean cc threats, hidden behind screens of some sort. Guilliman can pretty much one-shot a knight, for example.
That’s why I think that a tournament-viable knights list – if it exists – will be focussed on producing a lot of weight of fire at range. Can you generate 60 wounds on that unit of crusaders in turn one? Maybe, especially if you use “blessed by the sacristans” on an avenger and get a bit lucky. Smash captains will die relatively fast once you get to shoot them.
I’m still pretty happy with Tanaris as my house. I’ve got a reasonable chance of living through a charge from a single smash captain. Then I can use the stratagem to act at full effect, fall back and unload into him. I’ll certainly lose knights but I feel like I’d have a chance with this approach, where no other build would.
He also has enough firepower with the 2d6 9" flamer that would wound smash CPT on 3+ and deals 3 damage has an expectancy of killing smash CPT in overwatch (except angels wing) thats before accounting for the 5 volkite shots.
Competative knights wont be mono because a few extra guard points makes them do much stronger giving you some objective holders or CC screens and you need the Cp
U02dah4 wrote: The styrix is another knight with a 5++ in CC
He also has enough firepower with the 2d6 9" flamer that would wound smash CPT on 3+ and deals 3 damage has an expectancy of killing smash CPT in overwatch (except angels wing) thats before accounting for the 5 volkite shots.
Competative knights wont be mono because a few extra guard points makes them do much stronger giving you some objective holders or CC screens and you need the Cp
is that flamer exactly 9” if so you can’t fire overwatch on him when he deep strikes
Yes, I thought about just rolling for one Burden, I just didn’t want it to be one that really would hurt my attacking ability, like being forced to move closer to the nearest enemy.
With regards to failing the Burden roll on a 9+, the Gallant is Ld9, and you have to roll equal to or greater than the Ld to fail, if I roll a 9 then it becomes an 8 which I pass. So I have to roll a 10 for it to become a 9.
Here is the wording from the Codex:
If the result is less than that Freeblade’s Leadership characteristic, their Burdens do not apply that turn. If the result equals or exceeds their Leadership characteristic, then their Burdens apply until the start of your next turn.
This is the wording of how that Burden affects the dice roll:
If a Freeblade from your army has any Burdens, roll 2D6 for them at the start of each of your turns, subtracting 1 from the result if the Freeblade has the Exiled in Shame Burden.
I somehow read the burdens rule backwards; probably the drinking.
Exiled in shame seems to be a good burden to have now that I can read it sober and correctly.
You don't get to fire it. He has to deep strike outside of 9" - so by definition he is not in range. And he only has to get into 1", so he needs a 9 on 3 dice. This was addressed in a FAQ ~ a year ago.
The Styrix is still worth consideration though. It does come with a good weapon set and it's tough. It costs roughly the same as a crusader with RFBC and ironstorm pod. It does comparable damage, but also has a useful grabby hand and it's quite a lot tougher. I like the twin rad cleanser a lot. It's a real threat to things like Taloses. And if the damn smash captains are in your face it's a pretty decent option for removing them. Not to mention that a 4+ invulnerable in combat, with rotated ion shields, is seriously good news when those hammers are coming at you.
The volkite is a great gun too. It does the most damage to vehicles of any single weapon, except a TC at <18" against T8 targets with no invulnerable.
I don't think you need a Styrix, but I'm starting to think it's not awful - unless I'm getting its points cost wrong. Out of the knights with a save in cc I think it's the best.
TheMostWize wrote: Deep strike is actually more than 9" so it always means 9" flamers are never in range.
Fair enough
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mandragola wrote: You don't get to fire it. He has to deep strike outside of 9" - so by definition he is not in range. And he only has to get into 1", so he needs a 9 on 3 dice. This was addressed in a FAQ ~ a year ago.
The Styrix is still worth consideration though. It does come with a good weapon set and it's tough. It costs roughly the same as a crusader with RFBC and ironstorm pod. It does comparable damage, but also has a useful grabby hand and it's quite a lot tougher. I like the twin rad cleanser a lot. It's a real threat to things like Taloses. And if the damn smash captains are in your face it's a pretty decent option for removing them. Not to mention that a 4+ invulnerable in combat, with rotated ion shields, is seriously good news when those hammers are coming at you.
The volkite is a great gun too. It does the most damage to vehicles of any single weapon, except a TC at <18" against T8 targets with no invulnerable.
I don't think you need a Styrix, but I'm starting to think it's not awful - unless I'm getting its points cost wrong. Out of the knights with a save in cc I think it's the best.
I'm not sure these lists are legal. The admech units don't seem to fit as any detachment that I recognise.
A potential 1750 point list with a Styrix could be:
Warlord: Crusader with RFBC and ironstorm. Ion Bulwark and Endless Fury 501
Styrix with claw. Not really sure what relic/warlord trait to give this guy. I do like Veteran of Gryphonne IV for him, but only if you're House Cadmus. 500
Warden with 2+ save, Blessed by the Sacristans or landstrider 411
Armiger Warglaive 164
Armiger Helverin 174
Pleasingly, this comes to bang on 1750 points. I think it would be decent - probably better than the 1750 option with two crusaders that I posted earlier.
I'm not sure these lists are legal. The admech units don't seem to fit as any detachment that I recognise.
A potential 1750 point list with a Styrix could be:
Warlord: Crusader with RFBC and ironstorm. Ion Bulwark and Endless Fury 501
Styrix with claw. Not really sure what relic/warlord trait to give this guy. I do like Veteran of Gryphonne IV for him, but only if you're House Cadmus. 500
Warden with 2+ save, Blessed by the Sacristans or landstrider 411
Armiger Warglaive 164
Armiger Helverin 174
Pleasingly, this comes to bang on 1750 points. I think it would be decent - probably better than the 1750 option with two crusaders that I posted earlier.
Yes your right I forgot to add in the 2 tech priest hqslol. They are part of the lists just forgot to type them on my list.
Also I play 2k almost exclusively. Could fit my Ad. Mech in the list with that 1750 though for sure. I really want to get some cheap objective sitters that aren't Astra Militarum.
TheMostWize wrote: Yea I was thinking 3 squads with dual melta loaded in repressors.
Oh well that will be my next project. Gonna finish up this ad mech detachment first.
I've been spitballing a full sisters infantry battalion with a Warden and two helverins but it's coming in at 2100 point and there aren't any obvious points to give up. I'm going to try again with a mechanized detachment with melta dominions and probably an IG batallion, but that gets a lot more soupy.
davidgr33n wrote: Couple of questions that I don’t see specific answers to in the Codex-
1. Can Armiger Knights also be Freeblades? I know the larger Knights can but the wording in the Codex regarding the Armigers isn’t so clear.
2. I’ve looked in the FAQ and Codex, no mention of Knights having any kind of ObSec, is this the case?
Just for kicks and giggles I tried a Freeblade Gallant this weekend with the +1A trait and 2+ Save Relic, then gave it the Legendary Hero quality (re-roll a single roll of any kind each battle round), and chose 2 Burdens: numbers 1 and 5, which only once came into play since I have to roll a 10 or more for the Burdens to take effect.
Playing the Gallant like this was great, 6 base attacks with a re-roll for misses or that one save you have to make was really worth going Freeblade.
1) yes, a datasheet of armigers can be freeblades complete with 1 getting Q&B(Q&B are also independent of SHD requirements, and can be applied to a SHAD)
2) no, knights do not ever get obsec.
3) Should have rolled for Burdens; you can both Choose 1, and roll for 1 in Q&B; also you would have suffered burdens on a roll of 9+ as you subtract 1 if you have #1.
2 is wrong. Knights have 2 ways to get ObSec: The Banner of Macharius Triumphant and Sworn to a Quest for Freeblades. In the Banner's case, your Knight also counts as 10 models when contesting against other ObSec units.
