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.

The tech priests

Its the enginseer

Well, I got the Castellan on the table tonight and I have to say that without a doubt I am hugely disappointed. Even with the relic plasma and the raven reroll all the 1s strat it was just so lack luster for it's points. I think it's pretty safe to say that it's going to get shelved unless it's for an apoc game or I forget how disappointing it was and try it again.

I think for the most part i am going to stick to running a Valiant and two crusaders plus something for 1750. What that 'plus something' is i'm not sure. I'm currently chewing over the viability of 3 assassins, probably a Callidus, Cullexus and Eversor. (partly because i have the first two and just need an excuse to pick up the 3rd.)

@Godeskian
You already know the counter to 3++ invuls, weight of dice and mortal wounds,

Re:Mortal wounds, It's not the answer you want to hear but if someone is putting 5 captains on a knight you're counter is explode. That being said, i don't rate Noble Sacrifice as being a viable spend on anything other than a Dominus, it's just to coinflippy on 1 dice, realistically it's a potential 3 cp spend for a null result..

The only other option worth talking about is Blessed by the Sacristans on an Avenger or on a Gallant's feet. I know it sounds stupid but realistically you're looking for the highest volume of dice, which it undeniably is, with which to generate mortal wounds.

This probably isn't even worth mention as it's a total gimmick set up and requires you to be the charging unit, but a knight with the Griffith warlord trait + Griffith relic.

Anything else involves dipping out of codex.

So, what was so hugely disappointing about the Castellan? I am kinda curious. So many people praised it so much. So I kinda want people who have actually used either the Valiant or the Castellan on the tabletop to share their experiences with us.

 Drider wrote:
Well, I got the Castellan on the table tonight and I have to say that without a doubt I am hugely disappointed. Even with the relic plasma and the raven reroll all the 1s strat it was just so lack luster for it's points. I think it's pretty safe to say that it's going to get shelved unless it's for an apoc game or I forget how disappointing it was and try it again.

I think for the most part i am going to stick to running a Valiant and two crusaders plus something for 1750. What that 'plus something' is i'm not sure. I'm currently chewing over the viability of 3 assassins, probably a Callidus, Cullexus and Eversor. (partly because i have the first two and just need an excuse to pick up the 3rd.)

@Godeskian
You already know the counter to 3++ invuls, weight of dice and mortal wounds,

Re:Mortal wounds, It's not the answer you want to hear but if someone is putting 5 captains on a knight you're counter is explode. That being said, i don't rate Noble Sacrifice as being a viable spend on anything other than a Dominus, it's just to coinflippy on 1 dice, realistically it's a potential 3 cp spend for a null result..

The only other option worth talking about is Blessed by the Sacristans on an Avenger or on a Gallant's feet. I know it sounds stupid but realistically you're looking for the highest volume of dice, which it undeniably is, with which to generate mortal wounds.

This probably isn't even worth mention as it's a total gimmick set up and requires you to be the charging unit, but a knight with the Griffith warlord trait + Griffith relic.

Anything else involves dipping out of codex.

The Castellan is good at killing tanks but not an awful lot else,
if you put the volcano lance into on Russ and roll average you kill it,
if you roll below average you don't kill it. If you overload cawls wrath you have to roll above average to kill it.
to get the most out of it it needs to be Raven for that house's strat. This takes 2CP a turn to fuel.
If you are against a mass of troops it is next to useless.
I found the D6 shots and 2d6 shots to be completely unreliable. If you don't have another good source of anti tank you are are kinda forced both main guns into 1 target to ensure the kill against bad luck.
If you are taking advantage of it's range you are not getting any value from the 4 melta guns.
If you are hitting invuls the high -AP value of it's main weapons is wasted.
Point for point I think the crusader is a better all rounder.
If you use bubble wrap then if the Castellan blows, it blows up in your own face due to the positioning that it wants to play to.

The Valiant is good at killing troops and I feel is the better all rounder of the two dominus knights.
it's widely acknowledged that dealing with hordes is an issue for knights, the valiant plays into this roll and helps prop up one of knight's weak spots.
Regardless of degrading, the flamer is always going to be good, another weak point reduced in severity.
negative hit modifiers, yup auto hit got that covered.
Being charged by scary CC units they have to face the most brutal overwatch in the knight codex.
My other knight is being charged, that's ok because i'm playing hawkshroud and i've kept my knights clustered to the point where a realistic charge distance is inside the valliant's flamer range and it can overwatch for it's buddy. Best Friends Forever.
The down side is that the harpoon often doesn't get it's value, but if you are actively trying to position to get harpoon value, you are also getting melta value because even if you hit invul with the harpoon, 4 melta guns stand a very good chance of getting the job done. It's a great synergy overlap,
Lastly, if you are positioning for melta/harpoon value chances are that you are also in a decent position for Noble Sacrifice value.

As far as list set ups go, you bring a valiant with conflagration cannon/traitor's pyre and 2 avengers and you've got a decent amount of horde killing that can be turned to mulch multi wound models or deal effectively with disgustingly resilient models or other such FNP.
On the other hand if you bring a castellan you are forced into tailoring the rest of your list to specifically to cover it's weak points. Even when it comes it it's anti tank ability i would rather have 2 thermal cannons backed up with 2 stormspears, if the first TC/stormspear doesn't get the job done then you have a second to put into the same target to secure the kill or turn to a different target without risking the bad luck of going after 2 things and killing neither.

But this is all just my opinion and maybe bias, Others are more than entitled to hold their own opinions and maybe it comes down to the fact sisters are my primary army and i just really really like the fact the valiant has a MASSIVE FECKING FLAMER THROWER!

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
My mistake.

Both are from knights I don't use so I totally forgot about them.

I always play Questor Mechanicus, and never field a Freeblade.

No worries! I usually use Mechanicus too, but I've recently been toying with adding an Imperialis or Freeblade to a 1,500 Custodes list so it was fresh on my mind to some extent.

RE: Valiant Vs. Castellan

I think a lot of it comes down to different worlds, right? If you're running all Knights and Armigers that heavy shooting might be more overlooked. If you're running big melee armies like Custodes, you're already swimming in Hurricane Bolters for hordes and massive assault damage. What you need are some huge, long range guns to bust hard targets.

 Drider wrote:


@Godeskian
You already know the counter to 3++ invuls, weight of dice and mortal wounds,

Re:Mortal wounds, It's not the answer you want to hear but if someone is putting 5 captains on a knight you're counter is explode. That being said, i don't rate Noble Sacrifice as being a viable spend on anything other than a Dominus, it's just to coinflippy on 1 dice, realistically it's a potential 3 cp spend for a null result..

The only other option worth talking about is Blessed by the Sacristans on an Avenger or on a Gallant's feet. I know it sounds stupid but realistically you're looking for the highest volume of dice, which it undeniably is, with which to generate mortal wounds

Well, you’re not wrong about the mortal wounds. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and now that I’ve had a chance to think about it I’ve come to the unfortunate realisation that I let myself get panicked. Because I hadn’t fought his kind of hybrid build before, I let him push both the pace of the match, and the strategic initiative, meaning I spent the entire game reacting to him, rather than forcing him to react to me.

So here’s a few things I could have done differently, which could have won me the game assuming I’d not have to have conceded.

I could have interrupted his fight phase. When he charged my Crusader and didn’t kill it with the first smashfucker, I could have spent a CP and interrupted the fight phase, and stomped on two of the guys who hadn’t fought yet (or more likely, the guy with wings and one of the guys that hadn’t fought yet). Not only would this have denied him a set of attacks, and with only a little luck it would have meant that when he charged the remainder into the Valiant next turn, they’d have to eat overwatch.

If the stomps didn’t kill one or either of them, I could have further Thunderstomped whichever one survived for potentially more mortal wounds, and yes I could have used Noble Sacrifice to force yet more mortal wounds. Like you said I could have given him Blessings of the Sacristan to go along with the Armour of Sainted Ion which would have made him a much tougher nut to crack, as I probably could have levelled his shieldwalls long before they got into charge range.

For that matter, I could have deployed further back, taken Landstrider and run even further than I eventually did in order to kill the rest of is army. Sure I’d still have the Smashfuckers to deal with, but it would have forced him to split his attention between killing my dudes, and claiming the objectives that would let him win the game.

For that matter, not realising that Mephiston wasn’t his warlord, and the Aquila bearing squishy cadian was, would have helped, as I ended up baiting his CC element around one side of the board, I could have used Raven mobility to leg it round the impassable terrain in the center and decapitate his warlord, or spent for Oathbreaker Guidance System to nail him with a missile. Denying him the ability to feed of my command point usage would have been undeniably useful as he started with 8 and spent 22 by the time the game had ended. (He was regenning from his, from mine, and rolling an extra dice because of some blood angel relic, meaning that he was semi-frequently gaining CP by spending them.)

I’ll cop to the fact that I made plenty of mistakes in that game, mostly by concentrating on what had worked for me against other armies, and not fully thinking through what I needed to do in order to kill THIS army, but lessons learned for the future I suppose.

Audustum wrote:
RE: Valiant Vs. Castellan

I think a lot of it comes down to different worlds, right? If you're running all Knights and Armigers that heavy shooting might be more overlooked. If you're running big melee armies like Custodes, you're already swimming in Hurricane Bolters for hordes and massive assault damage. What you need are some huge, long range guns to bust hard targets.

I think this is good analysis. The Castellan does do a job well. It is just super-specialised.

I’m not sold on either for all-round games. The Valiant is a bit more of an all-rounder, but is hampered by having to go close to the enemy. Against hordes both knights fire 3d6 shots, though the Valiant’s hit automatically and it gets one extra with the harpoon. But the Castellan has the huge advantage of a 48” range.

It’s often suggested that the Valiant has an advantage with its meltas in that it’s more likely to be in range, but that’s really not true. There’s nothing at all stopping a Castellan from going forward and melting things if it sees a bunch of IG tanks. It just doesn’t have to, because its firepower is enough to blow them all away without the meltas, from a range at which it’s much safer.

What we’ve all been finding so far is that both knights are really unreliable. Those D6s for number of shots are horrible. In the game I lost against DE I got a double 1 for number of shots from Cawl’s Wrath twice, and my Volcano lance got 2s for its number of shots over and over again - though on one occasion it still did 9 wounds to an Yvahra with a single wounding hit.

The problem is that the other end of the dice isn’t useful, so it doesn’t balance out. You can shoot a Leman russ for 30 damage, but so what? I quite often shot them for 0.

The same applies to the flamer. Sometimes you just fire 5 shots or so, and your target walks away.

I’m not sure if a Crusader is actually better, point for point. It does get more shots but not all that many more, once you remember the meltas and carapace weapons. A lot of my problems with the Castellan were caused by my lack of practice using it - not knowing when to advance and when to hang back. And it’s a very CP-hungry knight if you use the Raven stratagem.

It’s more an issue of the cost. If I bring a Castellan at 1750 then my firepower will suffer, because of what else I can afford. The list I took, with a TC crusader, Gallant and two warglaives was seriously low on anti-horde. If I replace the Castellan with a Crusader or Styrix then I can afford to turn the Gallant into a Warden. At 2k I think I’d put the Castellan back in.

 Drider wrote:
As far as list set ups go, you bring a valiant with conflagration cannon/traitor's pyre and 2 avengers and you've got a decent amount of horde killing that can be turned to mulch multi wound models or deal effectively with disgustingly resilient models or other such FNP.
On the other hand if you bring a castellan you are forced into tailoring the rest of your list to specifically to cover it's weak points. Even when it comes it it's anti tank ability i would rather have 2 thermal cannons backed up with 2 stormspears, if the first TC/stormspear doesn't get the job done then you have a second to put into the same target to secure the kill or turn to a different target without risking the bad luck of going after 2 things and killing neither.

But this is all just my opinion and maybe bias, Others are more than entitled to hold their own opinions and maybe it comes down to the fact sisters are my primary army and i just really really like the fact the valiant has a MASSIVE FECKING FLAMER THROWER!

Those 2 TC's and Stormspears cost somewhere around 900 points tho while the Castellan is 'only' 600.

For a full Knight army you might indeed be better off without a Castellan. Or indeed either of the Dominus Knights and just bring 4 Questoris instead. But when shooting at 'big stuff' I don't think any other knight is going to beat a Castellan in point effectiveness.

How are people's Wardens performing so far?

 Ordana wrote:

 Drider wrote:
As far as list set ups go, you bring a valiant with conflagration cannon/traitor's pyre and 2 avengers and you've got a decent amount of horde killing that can be turned to mulch multi wound models or deal effectively with disgustingly resilient models or other such FNP.
On the other hand if you bring a castellan you are forced into tailoring the rest of your list to specifically to cover it's weak points. Even when it comes it it's anti tank ability i would rather have 2 thermal cannons backed up with 2 stormspears, if the first TC/stormspear doesn't get the job done then you have a second to put into the same target to secure the kill or turn to a different target without risking the bad luck of going after 2 things and killing neither.

But this is all just my opinion and maybe bias, Others are more than entitled to hold their own opinions and maybe it comes down to the fact sisters are my primary army and i just really really like the fact the valiant has a MASSIVE FECKING FLAMER THROWER!

Those 2 TC's and Stormspears cost somewhere around 900 points tho while the Castellan is 'only' 600.

For a full Knight army you might indeed be better off without a Castellan. Or indeed either of the Dominus Knights and just bring 4 Questoris instead. But when shooting at 'big stuff' I don't think any other knight is going to beat a Castellan in point effectiveness.

I think that four big knights might be the best starting point. That gives you enough units to threaten a lot of the battlefield and decent durability across your army.

Dominus knights can be ok, but as they are expensive it isn’t easily possible to have one and still take 3 other Questoris knights at 1750. You can just manage a Castellan, Gallant and two Errants, or a Valiant, Gallant, Errant and Warden. I’m really not a fan of knights without guns though, as I’ve mentioned.

At 2k I think the Dominus guys become pretty viable. You could even go with a Castellan, Valiant and two Wardens. That would be a lot of fun, though perhaps not quite good enough against hordes. A more sensible approach would probably be to have one or other Dominus and 3 crusaders/wardens.

Mandragola wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Drider wrote:
As far as list set ups go, you bring a valiant with conflagration cannon/traitor's pyre and 2 avengers and you've got a decent amount of horde killing that can be turned to mulch multi wound models or deal effectively with disgustingly resilient models or other such FNP.
On the other hand if you bring a castellan you are forced into tailoring the rest of your list to specifically to cover it's weak points. Even when it comes it it's anti tank ability i would rather have 2 thermal cannons backed up with 2 stormspears, if the first TC/stormspear doesn't get the job done then you have a second to put into the same target to secure the kill or turn to a different target without risking the bad luck of going after 2 things and killing neither.

But this is all just my opinion and maybe bias, Others are more than entitled to hold their own opinions and maybe it comes down to the fact sisters are my primary army and i just really really like the fact the valiant has a MASSIVE FECKING FLAMER THROWER!

Those 2 TC's and Stormspears cost somewhere around 900 points tho while the Castellan is 'only' 600.

For a full Knight army you might indeed be better off without a Castellan. Or indeed either of the Dominus Knights and just bring 4 Questoris instead. But when shooting at 'big stuff' I don't think any other knight is going to beat a Castellan in point effectiveness.

I think that four big knights might be the best starting point. That gives you enough units to threaten a lot of the battlefield and decent durability across your army.

Dominus knights can be ok, but as they are expensive it isn’t easily possible to have one and still take 3 other Questoris knights at 1750. You can just manage a Castellan, Gallant and two Errants, or a Valiant, Gallant, Errant and Warden. I’m really not a fan of knights without guns though, as I’ve mentioned.

At 2k I think the Dominus guys become pretty viable. You could even go with a Castellan, Valiant and two Wardens. That would be a lot of fun, though perhaps not quite good enough against hordes. A more sensible approach would probably be to have one or other Dominus and 3 crusaders/wardens.

What about a Styrix instead of a Crusader?

Something like Crusader, Styrix, x2 Wardens

The rad-cleanser seems pretty decent and the guaranteed 5 shots is pretty appealing

Yes, I think a Styrix could be pretty useful. If those smash captains are coming in at least it's got an invulnerable in melee.

I'm thinking House Tyranis
Castellan 2x Cannon
crusader Melta/Ironstorm
gallant Ironstorm
gallant Ironstorm

IG battalion (Bolters on commanders)

is going to be my go to.

Castellan (cawls wrath) stands back with Gaurd screening while the crusader (4++ WL trait and endless furry) supports the gallants.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I'm thinking House Tyranis
Castellan 2x Cannon
crusader Melta/Ironstorm
gallant Ironstorm
gallant Ironstorm

IG battalion (Bolters on commanders)

is going to be my go to.

Castellan (cawls wrath) stands back with Gaurd screening while the crusader (4++ WL trait and endless furry) supports the gallants.

I was all about the gallant but I'm starting to wonder if it's better to just take a warden in their place. Getting those extra horde killing shots is super useful. And they can utilize the paragon gauntlet well since it doesn't have the -1 to hit anyway.

I've been losing sleep over which knights to buy and which parts to buy to finish up my second knight lol.

Currently thinking this might work best as an all around use at 2k.

House Raven or Taranis
Crusader - Endless/TC, Ion
Crusader - Avenger/TC, Blessed by Sacristans
Warden - Paragon
Warden - Thunderstrike

Stygies VIII or Metalica
x2 Tech Priest Enginseers
Naked Rangers
Naked Rangers
Vanguard - Caliver, Omnispex

To above, between:

(1) Castellan, Crusader, Warden, Gallant
(2) Crusader, Crusader, Warden, Warden

I am pretty sure that (1) is always stronger than (2). Every tournament player is rushing out to buy and speed paint castellans. There has to be a reason. And your 1 gallant is enough to put the deathgrips out there.

Wulfey wrote:
To above, between:

(1) Castellan, Crusader, Warden, Gallant
(2) Crusader, Crusader, Warden, Warden

I am pretty sure that (1) is always stronger than (2). Every tournament player is rushing out to buy and speed paint castellans. There has to be a reason. And your 1 gallant is enough to put the deathgrips out there.

Sure, but (1) comes to at least 1815 points. (2) is 1736. So that’s why (2) makes more sense at 1750 points. You can have 4 big knights, all with avengers on.

I think the best option with a castellan at 1750 is Castellan, two wardens and two warglaives.

You think a single Helverin and 1 Warglaive would work better? Gives you two more long range Autocannons at 1750.

EDIT: Nevermind you can only get in the Helverin at 1750 with a Valiant not a Castellan was looking at the wrong thing.

I think you see a lot of people going out of their way to buy a Castellan because a Castellan naturally slots into a lot of armies, kind of like an IG batallion. A Raven castellan can be taken by itself in an auxiliary detachment and really doesn't lose anything for doing so since you take it for the strategems and warlord/relic traits. This makes it superior to say a shadowsword which does much of the same, except the shadowsword lacks the ability to reroll all it's ones, doesn't have access to a 4++/3++, a sneaky missile to one shot enemy battery characters, lacks a lot of handy strats like Noble sacrifice, machine spirit resurgent, etc. Etc.

Not to mention it doesn't require a lot of fancy play to make it work (no offense meant, I own one too). It's a natural fit for many players because you just slap it down and it will take care of the rest as long as you have half a brain and build a list that it works well with, like lots of IG infantry or fast elite cqc that covers it's weaknesses.

I picked up a Castellan and am building it for my AdMech and Guard force.

It will replace neutron onager Dunecrawlers as my primary antitank with basilisks running backup on “do the last 2 wounds the Cawls Wrath missed”. Infantry will be dealt with by way of Kastelan robots, and I prefer the 72 shots from 4 robots over the 12(~16 relic) + 2d6 shots from the Crusader.

I'm thinking about running 4 free blade Helverins with the legendary hero bonus and my guard brigade. They take the place of leman Russ.

Or maybe 2 helverins and 2 warglaives...

I thought only one knight per detachment gets the freeblade bonus, even if the whole detachment is made of free blades.

If you're wanting objective secured high durability vehicles I feel you're just better with Russe's at that point, since they can get objective secured with a spearhead, still get regiment bonuses, and are still a good shooting platform that can be specialized to deal with any target, often for cheaper than the hellverins.

They're not even that much slower than a hellverins, heck they're actually faster with orders.

If you were going to go with objective secured Armigers I feel you'd want warglaives. Anything taking objectives will inevitably need to shift something off of them, which means close quarters.

With the exception of canis rex only one freeblade in a detatchment gets qualities and burdens

Hey folks. I have a question relating to sally forth.

If on turn 2 I teleport in a Gallant is it a 9” charge or 8” cause he’s within 1 inch to make the charge?

I can never remember. Sorry really nooby question but I am a noob

it's a 9" charge.

If you outflank a Gallant you have to be at a distance greater than 9", so for arguments sake you are at 9.1".
To make the charge as you pointed out he has to be within an inch, 8" would get you to 1.1" meaning that the charge has failed. 9" would put you to 0.1"

It is a 9" charge because he has to start more than 9" away from the enemy (9.01"). When charging he has to end up less than 1" away. Rolling an 8 would put him just outside 1" since he had to start just outside 9".

It is the same for all units coming in from Reserve.

Don't worry about asking basic questions. We were all new players once.

Thanks guys. I had an inkling the 0.1 would come in to play that rings a bell.

Will take the +2 trait and para gauntlet I think

Yeah the +2” charge is pretty great on an outflanking knight.

I think this is a strong reason to bring a freeblade. You can add an imperial freeblade to an admech lance, while still getting all the house benefits, stratagems and so on for your remaining knights.

The strongest argument against this is that it arguably gets you into combat later than if you just walk. You can’t set your knight up until turn 2, by which point a runnning knight (especially one with landstrider) should definitely have got there already. Indeed, if they use the full tilt stratagem, they can probably charge on turn 1.

I was considering a house Terryn for the fight 2x stratagem. Turn 2 sucker punch?

 Ideasweasel wrote:
I was considering a house Terryn for the fight 2x stratagem. Turn 2 sucker punch?

Sure, but that’s a huge amount of CPs to pay. 3 to outflank and then 3 to attack twice. A normal knight with landstrider and full tilt can probably charge on turn 1 and fight a second time on turn 2 for only 2 CPs.

I do think there’s a case for bringing an imperial or freeblade knight to give you the option of this outflank. You could add a freeblade to a lance or, if you had 4 big knights, you could take an auxiliary from another house. It wouldn’t get its household tradition stuff but it could still use stratagems, relics and so on.