Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

 Ordana wrote:

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 AM CP 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

 Xenomancers wrote:

stratigo wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cadian16th wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

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?

U02dah4 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

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 AM CP 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

U02dah4 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

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 AM CP 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.

 raverrn wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

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 AM CP 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.

Did you get any use out of Shieldbreaker missiles given the profusion of invulnerable saves your opponent seemed to be toting?

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.

stratigo wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

stratigo wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cadian16th wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

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

Mandragola wrote:

 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

U02dah4 wrote:

Mandragola wrote:

 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?

 Xenomancers wrote:

stratigo wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

stratigo wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cadian16th wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

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.

 Ordana wrote:
not accounting for re-roll 1's on the number of shots because its to early in the morning).

Average result on a D6 if you can reroll 1s is 3.92.

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.

 Xenomancers wrote:
[
Raven (advance and shoot all knights and assault turn 1 is OP) Best offensive stratagem.

Nope. Not sure what you're smoking where you think you're charging first turn, unless you're playing against the worst player ever who let's you.

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?

Godeskian wrote:

 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.