Castellan points?

[LucidNinja]

Hey everyone,

I'm in the middle of a slow grow league and was wondering how many points do you think the Castellan will be? I'm hoping for a release next month and for it to fit it would need to be around the 750 mark. Am I being too optimistic?

Cheers

[PiñaColada]

I don't think that's too optimistic. If knights aren't lowered in points at all I'd guesstimate 800 points but either the existing knights will get somewhat significant buffs with the new codex or get cheaper. If the get cheaper I can easily see the Castellan in the 600-750 range. Either way, I think 750 is a pretty good guess from what little we know.

[LucidNinja]

Yeah knights need some changes to be worth it I think. At the moment I think there is about 350-400 points of weapons alone on the Castellan, with a standard knight base cost that's looking bad for 800

[Heliomanes]

I'd be surprised if it turns out to be more expensive than the massive Porphyrion, who sits at around 850p

[Stray]

Another issue is its power-level...

 

If you take into consideration that many of the Knights are just barely under PL 30 (from memory, the Atrapos is PL 29), there's a very good chance the Castellan could be 30+ given how heavily armed it is in comparison. That doesn't affect a majority of players, but under many Tournament rules (ITC for example), like the Porphyron, it won't be usable. You literally can't legally field any unit over PL 30, which may bode poorly for Knight armies, or at least the exposure they get...

[PiñaColada]

I'd be surprised if it turns out to be more expensive than the massive Porphyrion, who sits at around 850p

I'd never use Forgeworld as a measuring stick, since those points can fluctuate alot. Just look at some of the things in Chapter Approved. But logically speaking, yes it'd be weird if they were the same cost.

 

 

 

Another issue is its power-level...

 

If you take into consideration that many of the Knights are just barely under PL 30 (from memory, the Atrapos is PL 29), there's a very good chance the Castellan could be 30+ given how heavily armed it is in comparison. That doesn't affect a majority of players, but under many Tournament rules (ITC for example), like the Porphyron, it won't be usable. You literally can't legally field any unit over PL 30, which may bode poorly for Knight armies, or at least the exposure they get...

I didn't know about that. Hopefully GW is well aware

[Marshal Reinhard]

Honestly, it depends (or SHOULD depend, perhaps) a lot on what all those extra weapons are. If the smaller guns are relatively conventional, there's really no reason that the Castellan points cost should run away somewhere silly. Your typical Super heavy tank can add some 10+ weapons and still go for under 600 while still carrying something as large as volcano cannon or similiar. 

[Clingy]

So consensus is June for release?

[Stray]

Not sure really. I am certain we'll get a bunch of info and a much more solid indication from Warhammer Fest next weekend. It's even possible the Knight codex preview info will start showing up on the community site next week. They generally tell us what they're previewing in the coming week on Sunday afternoon/evening, so we'll find out today 

 

 

...and it's yet more Deepkin. Welp. :/

[Clingy]

5+ inv becoming a 4+ to both melee and shooting would go along way towards writing the wrongs of 8th knights

[Clingy]

*righting

[Shield-Captain MacGucci]

Another issue is its power-level...

 

If you take into consideration that many of the Knights are just barely under PL 30 (from memory, the Atrapos is PL 29), there's a very good chance the Castellan could be 30+ given how heavily armed it is in comparison. That doesn't affect a majority of players, but under many Tournament rules (ITC for example), like the Porphyron, it won't be usable. You literally can't legally field any unit over PL 30, which may bode poorly for Knight armies, or at least the exposure they get...

 

ITC removed the power level restriction when chapter approved came out. 

[LegionOfMars]

Any speculation on the guns yet? There’s a plasma, two twin meltaguns on the chest but no idea on the carapace and shoulder mounted or left arm.

[PiñaColada]

Well I think no new information has come out since the initial reveal. Had it been shown at warhammer fest we might have had some new info, but no such luck.
To the best of my knowledge the speculation is:
An upscaled plasma culverin

A volcano cannon
2 twin melta

2 taurox battle cannon

Unidentified missiles

 

Maybe I'm misremembering something though

[Marshal Reinhard]

Given how similiar knights are to super heavy tanks it wouldn't be out of left field for the one arm gun to be a volcano cannon. Having doubts that is what it is though... maybe instead its a 'quake cannon'  that the old castellan was described as having? Would we have a good guess to the stats for those?

 

The little turrets leave me completely stumped however. I don't see any visual similarity between them and anything else in use right now. (Save maybe battle cannons, except they're too small) Are they kinetic or energy weapons? The lack of the hitech gubbinz on their very simple design suggests the former while the lack of obvious ammo storage suggests the latter.

 

I'm assuming the missiles are hunter killers or something similiar.

[PiñaColada]

We do have stats on the quake cannon, since it's on the banesword super heavy. It's crazy strong.. Hopefully it's okay that I post those stats here..

140" heavy 2d6 shots S14 AP-4 D6 Treat any damage rolls of 1 or 2 as 3 instead. 

[ImperialSquishiness]

The fluff for a Knight castellan is a quake cannon. The Knight in the picture has a volcano cannon. My guess is Heavy Plasma Culverin, Volcano/Quake Cannon (possibly get a Choice), 2 multimelta, hellstrike missiles, 2 twin battle cannons

[Marshal Reinhard]

The Knight in the picture has a volcano cannon. 

 

You are certain of this?

[Stray]

I fear my guess is, unless we see some points restructuring across the Knight range, it'll be costed into near irrelevancy on release sadly. Especially with that kind of armament.

 

Still, even if that does happen, it'll be fun to play around with and paint regardless :)

[Marshal Reinhard]

A volcano cannon doesn't actually cost more than say a baneblade cannon by comparison, which the presumably updated RFBC should be very similiar to

[Stray]

A volcano cannon doesn't actually cost more than say a baneblade cannon by comparison, which the presumably updated RFBC should be very similiar to

 

I'm not sure it'll matter unfortunately.

 

The AM superheavies are pretty widely accepted as being fairly undercosted. The Castellan is undoubtedly going to cost more than any of the standard Knights - likely by a fair margin given the difference in firepower. When you think that a Crusader can run you to roughly 550 points...

 

Going by the current way Knights are costed, I'd expect it to end up around the Porphyron mark as things stand. For most of us, actually that's not a big issue - not in game with our friends. It'll really hurt anyone with any designs on it competitively though.

 

...then again, there is a rumour that points are assigned via a dartboard. Maybe the designers will throw three 1's? ;D

[ImperialSquishiness]

 

 

The Knight in the picture has a volcano cannon.

You are certain of this?

Yes. It would have a plain crown if it was a quake cannon. Crown on that barrel is off a volcano cannon. And I should know, seeing as I own them both for my guard!

[H311fi5h]

This wouldn't necessarily make it the same gun as the Shadowsword's Volcano Cannon though. Remember a Warlord Titan can also mount a Volcano Cannon, which is quite a different caliber.

Maybe the Castellan gets the same strength, AP and damage but only 2D3 shots for example.

Baneblade variants only bring one big gun to the table, a knight has two. You probably don't want knights to have the same kind of guns, because that would make them really expensive point wise (800+).

Personally I think the best power level for knight weaponry would be just above Leman Russ for the Questoris pattern guns. For example 3D6 shots for the rapid fire battle cannon, but otherwise unchanged stats. The Castellan could be placed 30% below Baneblade level firepower (per gun). This would make them 300-400 points and 600-700 points respectively.

I hope this is where they are going, because it would allow you to play 1 Castellan, 2 Questoris and 3 Armigers at 2000 points.

[Marshal Reinhard]

This wouldn't necessarily make it the same gun as the Shadowsword's Volcano Cannon though. Remember a Warlord Titan can also mount a Volcano Cannon, which is quite a different caliber.

Maybe the Castellan gets the same strength, AP and damage but only 2D3 shots for example.

Baneblade variants only bring one big gun to the table, a knight has two. You probably don't want knights to have the same kind of guns, because that would make them really expensive point wise (800+).

Personally I think the best power level for knight weaponry would be just above Leman Russ for the Questoris pattern guns. For example 3D6 shots for the rapid fire battle cannon, but otherwise unchanged stats. The Castellan could be placed 30% below Baneblade level firepower (per gun). This would make them 300-400 points and 600-700 points respectively.

I hope this is where they are going, because it would allow you to play 1 Castellan, 2 Questoris and 3 Armigers at 2000 points.

 

As has been discussed in another thread, Knights are pretty overcosted compared to the baneblade family already. We typically pay more for less. Our rapidfire battlecannon was comparable to the baneblade cannon in the index (not entirely true since the latter had +1 str, 1 better ap and did a set 3 damage instead of d3 per hit) and their prices seemed to be in the same ball park (invisible point cost makes it hard to pinpoint exactly). When the AM codex came out it then gave them another free d6 shots extra, while also making them overall cheaper.

 

Us being able to take two guns is a valid point to an extent, but keep in mind we seem to pay at least as much if not more points for our weaker guns. The tanks can also cover themselves in cheap extra firepower from massed lesser weapons. In short our current shootiest variants end up costing more while able to muster less dakka. (One detail I hope the castellan will rectify somewhat, what with its numerous smaller hard points)

 

As for volcano cannons, both the old index and the AM codex seem to treat them as completely equal to baneblade cannons. Their points cost appear to be exactly the same for either. Following that logic "our" volcano cannon shouldn't out of nowhere suddenly cost more (and you even theorize it might be weaker than the shadowsword's) for no reason. Rather, it should be priced similiar to our existing (and I would say already overpriced) arsenal. At least I think there's no valid reason the point should inflate even further and run away to something ridicilous like 800+.

[Lord_Caerolion]

It's more a case of whether it's a Volcano Cannon, or some other variant, like the Belicosa Volcano Cannon used by the Titan Legions. For all we know, it could have a Questoris Volcano Cannon, or something like that.