Here's the point Vaaish raised:



The question of whether a unit or list is over or underpowered always comes down to 'Compared to what?'.

I thought I'd put up a thread to have a look at the maths comparing some of their units to other common units in the game, similar to what I did previously with Eldar, Tau viewtopic.php?f=23&t=26241&p=498379 , comparing Macharius and Baneblades to other Super Heavies viewtopic.php?p=539787#p539787 etc.

No two lists are identical, so some of the comparisons are going to be imperfect. However I cross-list comparisons can stil be a useful starting point or at least something to reference rather than just what people 'feel' about units. (If you feel that any comparison to another unit isn't useful, feel free to suggest a different unit for comparison)

The first unit is the Knight Castellan. This struck me as a resilient unit with a remarkably high damage output at extreme range (eg into enemy deployment zone on turn 1), so for a start it will be compared to a similar amount of points spent on 7 Super Heavy Tanks, Warhounds and 4 types of Imperial Guard tanks.

KNIGHT CASTELLAN
350pts for 3 or 460pts for 4
Knight Castellan 20cm 4+ 5+ 4+
Knight Quake Cannon 90cm MW3+, FwA
OR BP2 90cm
AND Multi-barrelled Autocannon 45cm 3x AP5+/AT6+, FwA

Compared to 7 Super Heavy Tanks, Warhounds and 4 types of Imperial Guard tanks

This is the Super Heavy Performance guide I made a while back, and it compares a wide range of tanks based on how many kills they might be expected to do against a range of targets.
They are all based on how many of that sort of tank you can buy for around 2400-2500 (so for example 38 Leman Russes = 12 Baneblades = 7 Macharius Platoons)

The best characteristics are marked in Red (eg the Shadowsword's 90cm range), and very good characteristics are marked in Orange (eg the Macharius tank's 75cm range). The specific numbers in this chart are not vital to the Knight discussion, the key thing to note is the distribution of colours and how its spread out across most units.

For example, 12 Shadowswords (approx 2400-2500 points) are marked red (best) for range 90cm and for damage done to Super Heavy Tanks (20 DC average. They are marked orange (very good) for damage to Terminators and Leman Russ. At everything else they are average or worse, so are unmarked.



Now here's a similar (not identical) table for the Castellan. The same points that buy about 11 Shadowswords will buy about 21 Knight Castellans.
(The main difference is that this just splits damage into 45cm and 90cm, while the one above splits it into above and below 30cm. The reason for that is most of the 'above 30cm' ranges are actually 45cm which is the Castellan's lowest ranged weapon)



Again Red marks best, orange is very good. What this table shows is per point spent, the Castellan has the:

[] Highest score for effective range (joint with Shadowswords)
[] Highest score killing guard equivalent units out of cover at range over 30cm (outside the Heavy Bolter range that boosts most tanks), and exceptional performance at extreme range 90cm
[] Highest score killing marine equivalent units at range over 30cm, and exceptional performance at extreme range 90cm
[] Second highest score killing Terminator equivalent units at range over 30cm, but this is after Warhounds using Slow firing plasma.
[] Highest score killing marine equivalent units at range over 30cm using weapons without Slow Firing rules, and exceptional performance at extreme range 90cm
[] Second highest score killing Predator equivalent tanks at range over 30cm, Highest at over 45cm , and exceptional performance at extreme range 90cm
[] Third highest score killing Leman Russ equivalent tanks at range 30-45, second at over 45cm , close second to Shadowswords at extreme range 90cm
[] Third highest score killing Super Heavy tanks at range 30- 45cm, second at over 45cm, distant second to Shadowswords at extreme range 90cm

Conclusion: This is one of the best shooting units for its price in Epic by a large margin, against virtually any type of target.
It is very powerful within 45cm and exceptionally powerful at long range.

Castellans as Barrage units

The above stats are based on using the Castellan Quake Cannon in it's Macro Weapon form. However the weapon can also be fired as a template weapon.

460 points worth of Castellans can fire 8 Barrage Points 90cm. That is 3 blast templates, causing an extra BM on each unit touched. There are other units in the game with similar firepower, but none I am aware of at this price point or resilience level.

Damage output is less predictable, because it depends on how many units (and formations) are caught under the templates, but I can offer an opinion:
In my opinion, a 90cm 8BP weapon is frequently going to be a more powerful attack than even the 90cm Macro one shown in the post above. This might indicate a danger in allowing players to add custom amounts of BP to units, as the power escalates in a different way from standard non-template weapons

On a mobile, resilient, shooting-orientated combat capable War Engine, it might be prudent to give them 1BP each or a limit to amount of BP capable units in the formation.

Castellan Resilience

Compared to Warhounds
Warhounds are widely considered good value per point spent, and are frequently taken. They aren't a perfect comparison, but their status as the most common light war engine makes them an ideal place to start. If a War Hound is good, then any war engine better than it for the same points must be at least 'very good'.

Similarities include FF4 and CC5, ranged macro, multiple 45cm AP/AT shots. Differences include WH Fearless, Activation, Speed vs Castellan's cheaper cost, longer ranged firepower, better armour, 4+ vs TK, higher DC.



*It requires 1.47 hits to remove each point of damage capacity due to the 5+ RA save
** The castellan's resilience is boosted by a 4+ save against Titan Killing weapons except in crossfire and supporting fire
***The amount of hits the unit causes in a FireFight is included because it has an impact on survivability; the more a formation causes, the less likely it is to be assaulted or to lose when assaulted. FF rather than CC because multiple war engine formations can almost always select to use FF rather than CC (and Castellan and WH have identical CC and FF values anyway)


Conclusion: The Castellan formation is considerably more resilient than the Warhound formation until broken, but takes a lot more hits to break.
The formation requires more than twice as many hits to kill, and the gap is even wider against Close Combat (WH void shields are ignore) and Titan Killing weapons (which Castellans save against on a 4+, and if one gets through it can never do more than 1 additional damage to the DC2 units.

Unlike the table posted earlier in this thread this is not an identical points value comparison, in this instance the Castellan formation is also cheaper than the Warhound formation.

That's quite the compelling argument.

_________________
Necron AC (click to see current Necron list threads)
Toronto Wargaming Group

Tanks for the comparison.
Numbers is not everything and different armies have different weaknesses and strengths but I agree that some of the units is very powerful.
The ability to choose freely between BP or a macro hit alone is quite powerful as they can adapt to the battlefield and/or opponent. Add the invulnerable 4+ save and the ability to spread wounds/hits among the different units and you get a very good knight in my opinion...

Hey Matt.
Great comparison data.
Would you think a price rise to 400 points, plus 150 for an extra would survice?

I think the bp1 change is a great idea. But how does that fit with the wider quake weapon piece.?

Cheers Jim

I agree that the ability to choose weapon modes might be a little too good. A BP reduction or just allowing 1 firing mode might be good actually.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

Hey matt
It might be worry running a comparison on the errants. They are a 6dc formation with an on "the charge" attack of 6 x 5+ mw ff attack OR 6x4+cc AND 3x 5+ fs FF attack AND 3x 4+Cc tk attack.

And being a war engine it gets to decide CC or FF attacks if it has a valid target. All for the bargain basement price of 350 points.
Cheers
Jim

I'd be happy to. Any suggestions of what it might be compared to? As a reinforced armour assault unit, perhaps Chaos Terminators (who also lack ATSNKF), and as a reinforced armour FF unit perhaps Minervan Executioner tanks.
Multiple 4+ TK attacks too though? It's not easy to find anything to compare those to at this price point lol, but I can post some examples of the expected results.

In the meantime, here's a look at the Knight Crusader for the sake of completeness. The Crusader is an optional part of the same unit as the Castellan in the above posts. "Any three of the following units: Knight Castellan, Knight Crusader
Add one Knight Castellan or Knight Crusader for +110 points", so they have the same cost and are interchangeable within the formation.

The Crusader does not have 3x Autocannons, and instead sports 2x Lascannons. The result is a 2x AT4 tank hunting build compared to the Castellans more versatile 3x AP5 AP6



Things worth noting:
This scores lower than the Crusader vs all infantry target - but even so, remains the better than the dozen unit types above at killing infantry at long range, and while being closer to them doesn't increase damage out put it still has very good performance against Marines and Terminators compared to other units when within 45 and 30cm. This is simply a result of lots of macroweapon shots.
As a tank hunter, it's exceptional. Nothing kills predator class vehicles better per point at 90cm, and only Stormblades firing both "slow firing" plasma beat it within 45cm and Demolishers beat it within 30cm.



If the base cost was 133 (400/3) then 150 would be a premium cost for upgrade. Assuming it was 400 pts for 3, then the 2500 pts worth used in the charts would buy about 19 (18.75 units, rather than 21).

I did a quick chart with your price increase suggestion, 400pts for 3 (19 for about 2500), which is added in the grey rows below.



As you can see, the damage output per point drops a bit (about 9.5%) across the board, but the units remain exceptional against all sorts of targets, especially at long range.

TBH I think the list designers might want to look at reducing all the long range macro shooting before trying to adjust the unit costs. Massed 90cm Macro is a game changer, and I mean that literally; It is so efficient against all targets that it has the potential to turn Epic into a shooting gallery.

With all the games I've played with Knights, and I'm guessing about a dozen, I've seen that happen only once and that was when you could field 6-strong Crusader/Castellan formation, which is no longer allowed. Since the most you can now have is 4 in one formation, I haven't seen a Crusader/Castellan formation dominate a game.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart

Hey DS.
This data provided by matt is supposed to get around this whole "feelings about the list" and provide empirical data to assist n in comparing and balancing the list.

I gave read the battle reports for the knights list and they arent really that strong. The idea that knights haven't dominated the shooting phase yet is kind of moot given the data provided by matt - which indicates that the castellans are point for point the most effective shooting unit.

Thanks for the feedback, DS. The purpose of the maths and charts is to give a more concrete starting point for comparison, so all it's actually doing is showing how the quality of these unit's shooting compares with other units already in approved lists in Epic. I can't make a comment on what people actually use in their lists, this is just about the potential of what is available to be used.

There's a very important point from your feedback though:

"With all the games I've played with Knights, and I'm guessing about a dozen, I've seen that happen only once and that was when you could field 6-strong Crusader/Castellan formation, which is no longer allowed. Since the most you can now have is 4 in one formation, I haven't seen a Crusader/Castellan formation dominate a game."

A 6 strong formation FEELS like it dominates the game, because it puts out so much damage at once from right across the board.
Two 3 strong formations would be more likely to ACTUALLY dominate the game, because they can score exactly the same damage output, but can do it across more than 1 formation, or have the second hit the same target after the first formation breaks it, or at an absolute minimum can put one extra blast marker on the target.

The gap between what a unit's power feels like and what it actually is is why I think maths and comparisons are useful.

It doesn't surprise me that Custodians are on par with Shadowswords, I used them directly in a comparison similar to this (and this) when working out their points. I've leaned towards bumping their cost for the last iteration but didn't mainly because the three play groups were fine with them as is. Statistical analysis like this can be compelling, but I'm always going to fall back to empirical/playtest evidence first.

I've played at least 18 games with/against two formations of Custodians to date. In the games against them, I've tried to minimize what they can target and get them in a prepped/well support assault. Once broken, keep on shooting until they're gone.

So in short, a cost bump is definitely in the cards providing I see some games that show 12ish (fitting much more than that in a 3k is going to be tough) Custodians are a game changer. After that, maybe reduction to MW4+ or dropping the BP option (they never had it in SM/TL anyway, that harkens back to the early EA AMTL list). But games.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Thanks for posting the links Dave, I'll have a look and compare notes.

I agree they are on par with Shadowswords for range and similar ability to kill reinforced armour at long range. If there was an issue, it would be that they are then vastly superior to shadowswords per point spent vs light and armoured infantry (eg guard and marines), superior against terminators, and vastly superior vs armoured vehicles (eg Predators).
Ignoring the 6 to 8 BP barrage option as a factor if it's likely to be dropped anyway, they're also better in firefights and assaults, and have the additional resilience of a shield against TK and the way a 2DC WE unit can never take more than 1 additonal damage from a TK weapon.

Regarding playtests, that's a fine way to go about it. I find once the strengths of powerful units are identified they get included in lists more, and list authors get more feedback about them.